KHL Expansion Part VIII

[vorky]

Like it or not, some of these "Siberian" clubs are ahead of many leading clubs from Sweden, Finland, Germany or Switzerland. These European clubs are not reaching the level of these "Siberian" teams in upcoming future. Be it financing, infrastructure, leadership/ownership & overall hockey conditions. Definitelly Avangard, Ak Bars, Avtomobilist, Magnitka, even Salavat Yulaev.

PS: For now ignore that Kazan or Ufa are not technically Siberia. By a strict vocabulary, only Avangard Omsk & Sibir Novosibirsk are part of the Siberian Federal District of the Russian Federation.

 

[Albatros]

Exotic perhaps, what I can recall is that when Magnitogorsk won the original European Hockey League in 2000 the final in Lugano had about the worst attendance in all tournament.

I'm of course not advocating against a good hockey league existing in Siberia, but there's no point in integrating it into European league structures.

 

[Faterson]

I'm of course not advocating against a good hockey league existing in Siberia, but there's no point in integrating it into European league structures.

What do you mean by "no point"? Once again, it makes perfect sense. Those are some of the finest hockey clubs on this planet, outside of those in the NHL, so it makes all the sense in the world to include them in a European-centric league.

(And, as I keep saying, I trust this will one day be transformed into the European Conference of a world-wide hockey league.)

 

[OskarOskarius]

Fasel says "sooner or later a big international hockey league will appear in Europe. Perhaps, it will be an integral part of the KHL, its western conference."

So, earlier I paraphrased his words.

If you follow this process closely, you know that Fasel says the same visions as the KHL leadership.

First of all, Russians plan for a long period of time, they have a time, they do not need to realize all their visions within a few years. As we know, this fundamental misunderstanding is seen with judging of the KHL expansion because some of us wants to see the results (aka teams joining) right now. That is not the Russian way.

So, what does the KHL say? They would like to see the strong league in Eurasia with headquarter in Moscow. You know, it is important who will run the show - Moscow or Zurich/London whatever? Some time ago, the KHL said some interesting vision, which went unnoticed (but I wrote about it) - they can imagine a league with de-facto separated conferences/divisions, the western (Europe) & eastern (former CCCP & Russia & Asia). The teams of both conferences would not meet in the regular season, or just one away trip to the closest cities would be made (Moscow, St.Petersburg or perhaps Kazan). I noticed the KHL also saying about three divisions as a scenario (Europe, Central/Western Russia & Siberia/Asia). Only neighbouring divisions would meet, so European division vs Central/Western Russian, so no travelling Helsinki-Vladivostok. This is exactly what Fasel says. Btw, one problematic element would be eliminated, the European clubs would not travel behind Urals & not meeting with so-called unatractive (for European fans) Russian teams like Amur, Sibir or Metallurg with Avangard. So, noting it is just a vision now, two/three separated leagues - European & Russian & Siberia/Asia - would be created but run from one headquarter. It remains to be seen where this headquarter will be located.

One more time, it is just a vision, a lot of work to be done. Especially with financing & infrastructure. Europe is miles behind Russia.

He has also said that he wants the SHL and Liiga to merge their leagues. I don't want that but perhaps we could drop the Champions League and have a competition between Swedish and Finnish teams. The KHL is a dead league with zero interest. Not even Russian media rights deals are close to SHL media rights deal. It is just a bunch of oligarchs without any real popular support.

 

[mkev400]

That's only your opinion, Debbie Downer. It definitely can be sustainable. Making a trip of Siberia and the Far East once per season totally is sustainable, and it's also attractive from hockey fans' point of view.

But the examples of Prague, Zagreb and Slovan show that (at the very least financially) it wasnt and still isn't sustainable. Otherwise, you'd have to assume that all 3 teams would still be part of the KHL.

 

[Faterson]

But the examples of Prague, Zagreb and Slovan show that (at the very least financially) it wasnt and still isn't sustainable. Otherwise, you'd have to assume that all 3 teams would still be part of the KHL.

Nonsense. You want to form a general rule based on the huge sample of 3 instances?

Besides, Slovan didn't have standard ownership back in its KHL days – it was owned by an oligarch back then, so none of the usual business rules applied. Slovan has a new, standard business owner now, I'm certain he wants to get back to the KHL ASAP, but he's being careful about it precisely because he wants it to be sustainable.

 

[vorky]

Nonsense. You want to form a general rule based on the huge sample of 3 instances?

Besides, Slovan didn't have standard ownership back in its KHL days – it was owned by an oligarch back then, so none of the usual business rules applied. Slovan has a new, standard business owner now, I'm certain he wants to get back to the KHL ASAP, but he's being careful about it precisely because he wants it to be sustainable.

I would like to reply to two important things from your post - "form a general rule" & "precisely/sustainable"

But I would start with the following. It would be very wrong to think that if a club joins the KHL, that club will keep playing in the league forever. The KHL has been in a process of development like the UEFA competitions were back in 1950s. Even the NHL has survived many ownership changes & relocations in its history. So, we are witnessing nothing new with the KHL. If you follow closely European sport, you know that national leagues are a strong element in Europe. But the KHL comes with a different model. It takes time to establish in European sport.

As we know the KHL has a short-time plan for expansion team, it is a three-year period of acclimatation. During the time, the club can establish itself in the league & continue playing or leave the competition. Normal process. Therefore the Swiss clubs want a backup plan, which is complicated to negotiate with the National League.

So, we can not form a general rule with cases in the past. Every club is unique.

Back in time, the KHL followed a bit different goals with expansion than now. And the KHL had a bit different conditions. Also the clubs had different goals. Now, all doing it precisely to make it sustainable. So, we can not compare with the past.

 

[Albatros]

The KHL is nowhere near good enough relative to the Swiss league for any established Swiss team to contemplate switching leagues on their own.

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

The KHL is nowhere near good enough relative to the Swiss league for any established Swiss team to contemplate switching leagues on their own.

Swiss teams also have this "fiscally responsible decision-making" mindset that makes it incompatible with the KHL or any intraregional league.

 

[Jussi]

Nonsense. You want to form a general rule based on the huge sample of 3 instances?

Besides, Slovan didn't have standard ownership back in its KHL days – it was owned by an oligarch back then, so none of the usual business rules applied. Slovan has a new, standard business owner now, I'm certain he wants to get back to the KHL ASAP, but he's being careful about it precisely because he wants it to be sustainable.

And they some how matter now in the KHL? Have you paid any attention to Jokerit? They wouldn't be in the KHL if not for Potanian funding them via Norilsk Nickel.

 

[Faterson]

And they some how matter now in the KHL?

Reading comprehension issue, I see. I'm saying that judging on the financial sustainability, or lack thereof, of any project while standard business practices never applied, is a moot point.

Not saying that such practices matter now or that they will ever matter. If Putin decides to (co-)sponsor Slovan's participation in the KHL, I'm all for it. I want to see top hockey played, and don't care who pays for it. Without the club's standard business ownership being affected in any way, of course.

(By the way, if you believe that NHL owners are all honest, upright businessmen, that's a good laugh.)

 

[Jussi]

Reading comprehension issue, I see. I'm saying that judging on the financial sustainability, or lack thereof, of any project while standard business practices never applied, is a moot point.

Not saying that such practices matter now or that they will ever matter. If Putin decides to (co-)sponsor Slovan's participation in the KHL, I'm all for it. I want to see top hockey played, and don't care who pays for it. Without the club's standard business ownership being affected in any way, of course.

(By the way, if you believe that NHL owners are all honest, upright businessmen, that's a good laugh.)

Never made such claims but the NHL model is based on actual revenue and a sustainable business model.

 

[vorky]

I recommend to our friends to google for more information regarding the Swiss clubs. You need to know whom to ask. I will give you an example of how not doing it, Back in time I noticed Mr McSorley statement about Servette, he claims "I have never negotiated with the KHL. I know nothing about my team joining the KHL." Of course, he knew nothing, because nobody negotiated with him. And honestly, there was no reason for it, why should Timchenko negotiate with McSorley? Absolutely no reason. There are other more important guys on Swiss side to negotiate with.

 

[alko]

Europe is miles behind Russia

What do you mean?

 

[OskarOskarius]

I recommend to our friends to google for more information regarding the Swiss clubs. You need to know whom to ask. I will give you an example of how not doing it, Back in time I noticed Mr McSorley statement about Servette, he claims "I have never negotiated with the KHL. I know nothing about my team joining the KHL." Of course, he knew nothing, because nobody negotiated with him. And honestly, there was no reason for it, why should Timchenko negotiate with McSorley? Absolutely no reason. There are other more important guys on Swiss side to negotiate with.

Nobody wants to talk to KHL.

 

[Rigafan]

A curious question, whether I'm a fan of the KHL or not...

What is the problem if oilgarchs are funding the teams? Given the economics involved these teams wouldn't be possible (not at this level) without their help.

The NHL is run by billionaires and im pretty sure 99.9% of most other hockey teams in Europe would love to have companies such as Norlisk paying their bills, for example.

I can understand people may thing these rich people are using the league and team as 'toys' but then some of these teams have been around for 50 years or more.

 

[mkev400]

Nonsense. You want to form a general rule based on the huge sample of 3 instances?

Besides, Slovan didn't have standard ownership back in its KHL days – it was owned by an oligarch back then, so none of the usual business rules applied. Slovan has a new, standard business owner now, I'm certain he wants to get back to the KHL ASAP, but he's being careful about it precisely because he wants it to be sustainable.

Well I only used the 3 non-Russian teams that couldnt sustain the cost. The issue is that unsustainable costs are a recurring theme for many an outgoing team in the KHL history. Spartak Moscow and Admiral took temporary leave of absences cause they couldn't afford the bills. Then there are Atlant, Khimik and Novokuznetsk who left the league permanently (the latter as part of the contraction in 2017) due to financial issues and Dinamo Moscow, one of the bigger names in Russian Hockey had to merge with MVD Balashikha because of financial difficulties (which re-appeared in 2017), eliminating MVD from the KHL.
I'm happy to exclude Admiral from the list given their financial trouble was in part caused by the local government re-routing their sponsorship money to help the current health crisis. However that still leaves 8 out of 11 teams (73%) that left the league because of unsustainable costs and financial trouble.

While thats not a general rule, it's not exactly a good track record for the 13 years of the leagues existence. If anything it shows how dependent teams are on the oligarchs covering the teams losses and that it is unsustainable for the clubs to even remotely afford even a year in the KHL, with sponsorship and gate receipts, because of the unsustainable costs per season.

 

[Albatros]

A curious question, whether I'm a fan of the KHL or not...

What is the problem if oilgarchs are funding the teams? Given the economics involved these teams wouldn't be possible (not at this level) without their help.

The NHL is run by billionaires and im pretty sure 99.9% of most other hockey teams in Europe would love to have companies such as Norlisk paying their bills, for example.

I can understand people may thing these rich people are using the league and team as 'toys' but then some of these teams have been around for 50 years or more.

Lack of sustainability, what will happen to the club when it's abandoned by the owner? If we take Jokerit for example, the best-case scenario is that once no one pays their bills in the KHL they'll just move seamlessly back to Liiga and all is well. No harm done. But the circumstances may also be such that they can not continue their existence and will be disbanded, then it's harder to justify the years of squander.

 

[Rigafan]

Lack of sustainability, what will happen to the club when it's abandoned by the owner? If we take Jokerit for example, the best-case scenario is that once no one pays their bills in the KHL they'll just move seamlessly back to Liiga and all is well. No harm done. But the circumstances may also be such that they can not continue their existence and will be disbanded, then it's harder to justify the years of squander.

When it comes to teams like Jokerit or other traditional Euro teams, sure I understand it 100%. Why should Jokerit (or whichever team) vanish because somebody thought it'd be a cool idea to throw them in the Russian project.

When it comes to Russian teams, who cares who funds them? The main teams will always be around (or so it seems) if not, well they all know the risks and costs involved with joining such a project.

I don't mean that in any disrespect to any other teams. I am a huge Dinamo Riga fan, they could stop existing tomorrow if the Gazprom sub companies pull the plug but as a simple fan there is nothing I can do, the owner decided to operate this way so I can only hope they keep paying for them!

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

A curious question, whether I'm a fan of the KHL or not...

What is the problem if oilgarchs are funding the teams? Given the economics involved these teams wouldn't be possible (not at this level) without their help.

The NHL is run by billionaires and im pretty sure 99.9% of most other hockey teams in Europe would love to have companies such as Norlisk paying their bills, for example.

I can understand people may thing these rich people are using the league and team as 'toys' but then some of these teams have been around for 50 years or more.

Funding goes away and what happens to the team? If the team is run as a business and is run sustainably, there is no worry about the team's present or future. What happens to Lokomotiv Yaroslav if OAO decides to stop funding the team? The team ceases to exist almost immediately.

It doesn't matter who funds the team. Owners over in North America aren't all wise heros. But the team is never a financial burden on them. No NFL teams lose money. Very few NHL teams lose money, and if they do, it is used as a loss leader where they own or manage the arena which is where the real money is. If the owner decides to sell the team there, it isn't because they can't afford to keep taking the loses. In KHL, most, if not all, teams are financial burdens. They are black holes which suck up money and never provide anything back, and will likely never be able to return their investment.

 

[Albatros]

For Riga it's of course a bit different, the domestic league in Latvia isn't really competitive and most of its teams come from the same city anyway. Lacking a better option it's KHL or bust. Likewise they could expand to Uzbekistan or so, but not Western Europe.

 

[vorky]

What about players...when will they sign them?

Now they have the access to KHL CIB.

 

[cska78]

Now they have the access to KHL CIB.

I heard, just signed Saustov

 

[vorky]

I heard, just signed Saustov

Yes, Dmitry Sayustov is the first player officialy signed.

Admiral case shows us how the KHL learns from past. They gave CIB access when Admiral did what they should do.

 

[SoundAndFury]

Admiral case shows us how the KHL learns from past. They gave CIB access when Admiral did what they should do.

Not really sure what any of this means.