Russia Wants 2 Million For Ovechkin!!!!

[Petey21]

But it's not in the European teams interest to be some kind of nursery home for the NHL, and get almost nothing back in return. If they wanna keep their players at all costs and be as competitive as they can within their own domestic leagues, I think they should have all the rights to do so.. The European teams shouldn't feel sorry for the NHL if they can't afford to pay the prices they set for their players. It's different with the Canadian and American junior and farm leagues as they are more or less developement leagues for the NHL, but the European leagues have their own life, and what fun is it for them to produce a bunch of talented players that will disappear in their late teens or early 20's, and stay away from their own country until they're at the very end of their career in their mid 30's? Or in some cases they will simply just retire after their NHL career, to never again play for the team or country that "produced" them?

It's the NHL's problem if they have a tight budget and can't afford buying these players at a "real" market price (which I still think should be determined by the current team and not the potentional buyer). The European teams shouldn't have to suffer just because the NHL wants all the best players in the world but at a very low price. Look at European soccer (mostly England, Spain, Italy, the main leagues in Europe), the teams there pay tons of money to buy players that are under contract with another team, and I'm not talking about 2 million dollars (David Beckham for example costed $40 million when he went to Real Madrid from Manchester United).

 

[Kronblom]

Actually I believe teams in Finland, Sweden etc. were basicly happy with the amount of money they were getting on the last deal. Ok, more wouldn't hurt, but their main concern was the late date for the NHL-IIHF deal release clause.

No, they were NOT!

The only good thing about the old deal was that the european teams got compensated even if the players contracts had expired.

 

[Foppa_Rules]

But it's not in the European teams interest to be some kind of nursery home for the NHL, and get almost nothing back in return. If they wanna keep their players at all costs and be as competitive as they can within their own domestic leagues, I think they should have all the rights to do so.. The European teams shouldn't feel sorry for the NHL if they can't afford to pay the prices they set for their players. It's different with the Canadian and American junior and farm leagues as they are more or less developement leagues for the NHL, but the European leagues have their own life, and what fun is it for them to produce a bunch of talented players that will disappear in their late teens or early 20's, and stay away from their own country until they're at the very end of their career in their mid 30's? Or in some cases they will simply just retire after their NHL career, to never again play for the team or country that "produced" them?

It's the NHL's problem if they have a tight budget and can't afford buying these players at a "real" market price (which I still think should be determined by the current team and not the potentional buyer). The European teams shouldn't have to suffer just because the NHL wants all the best players in the world but at a very low price. Look at European soccer (mostly England, Spain, Italy, the main leagues in Europe), the teams there pay tons of money to buy players that are under contract with another team, and I'm not talking about 2 million dollars (David Beckham for example costed $40 million when he went to Real Madrid from Manchester United).

I agree that they should get more money--substantially more, but not the kind of prices they are talking about. And since people are people, and it can't be assumed that they will be angels and do the right thing, safety measures have to be taken so that people don't take advantage of any privelege of dealing individually with teams. It can't be assumed that every European club will deal fairly. So, with that in mind, there has to be some way of determining the fair amount a European club should get for it's player. The idea here is that NHL teams are paying a fee to compensate a European team for the loss of a player--NHL teams aren't "buying" players like slaves. If a player wants to come to the NHL, he should have a right to do so and not be hindered because his team has an interest in keeping him on that team and asks an outrageous price for that player so that the player is stuck on the team.

I think a deal should be structured where there is a set price based on the number the player is drafted in the NHL Entry Draft, but contrary to the present agreement, I think the new one should have the transfer fees going to--but not decided by--individual European clubs. This way the fees aren't spread around to all the teams that had nothing to do with the development of the drafted player, but also players and NHL teams can't be taken advantage of by European teams.

 

[jekoh]

Of course the present deal isn't fair, but neither is charging $2 million dollars for one player. They have to find a way to make a deal that charges more for better players but not too much. The NHL has a rather tight budget and they don't have money to throw around to aggressive European teams.

If they don't have the money, they don't get the players.

What's wrong with that ?

If the Caps fork over $2 million dollars for one player, it sets a very dangerous precedent. Soon other teams would try to pull the same trick, and the NHL will be in dire straits.

If the NHL being in dire straits means more parity between leagues, I'm all for it.

 

[Vincent_TheGreat]

Exactly. NHL fans need to understand they don't have a birth right to the best talent in the world. If the NHL wants a player, they should compensate the team they are taking the player from, if said team has a contract with the player. It's only fair.

So CHL teams should get compensation, especially when there superstar players are taken when they have 3 years left, its no different.

 

[Petey21]

I think a deal should be structured where there is a set price based on the number the player is drafted in the NHL Entry Draft, but contrary to the present agreement, I think the new one should have the transfer fees going to--but not decided by--individual European clubs. This way the fees aren't spread around to all the teams that had nothing to do with the development of the drafted player, but also players and NHL teams can't be taken advantage of by European teams.

Who is to decide the amount of money then, if not the European team who has the rights to the player? Not the NHL I hope, as they will of course make it as small as possible, to benefit from it themselves. The NHL doesn't care at all about the European teams as long as they get their players.

And so far in history there has never been a case where a European team has "taken advantage" of an NHL team, but the opposite happens every year when Europeans leave their native teams for the NHL for a ridiculously low amount of money. And then later once in the NHL, the player gets a yearly salary that's way higher than the transfer fee was, so it's not like the NHL is out of money.

 

[Foppa_Rules]

If they don't have the money, they don't get the players.

What's wrong with that ?

Because the players are the ones who want to come to the NHL. They should not be hindered by European teams. As it is, even if a player's contract is up the transfer fee still has to be paid, so in effect, the player is a slave to whatever European club own's their rights. Many European clubs won't use this power to cause problems; others will. You can't depend on the goodness of man; you have to take precautions and have checks and balances.

 

[Foppa_Rules]

So CHL teams should get compensation, especially when there superstar players are taken when they have 3 years left, its no different.

North American teams are different because they are basically just farm teams. The players in North America want to play in the NHL. They go in these North American leagues to prepare for the NHL.

In Europe things are different. European leagues are trying to compete--if they can--with the NHL and have their own seperate leagues. But they still understand--or should--that the NHL is the best league in the world and most players want to try their hand at playing against the best players in the world. We can't be overly biased toward either party. The interests of both sides must be recognized and a fair deal must be made that satisfies both parties. We have professional people working on it right now. I don't think there's much cause for concern unless one or both sides is being unreasonable. If they both act fairly and respect the other's interests, a suitable deal will be made.

 

[Foppa_Rules]

Who is to decide the amount of money then, if not the European team who has the rights to the player? Not the NHL I hope, as they will of course make it as small as possible, to benefit from it themselves. The NHL doesn't care at all about the European teams as long as they get their players.

And so far in history there has never been a case where a European team has "taken advantage" of an NHL team, but the opposite happens every year when Europeans leave their native teams for the NHL for a ridiculously low amount of money. And then later once in the NHL, the player gets a yearly salary that's way higher than the transfer fee was, so it's not like the NHL is out of money.

No, the NHL shouldn't decide, and neither should the European teams. Either will take advantage of the other given the opportunity. An independant party has to decide, or an agreement has to be made that satisfies both parties and that is a fair deal. There have to be checks and balances to the powers of both sides.

Like I have said, I think the best deal would be one in which the tranfer fee, as in the present deal, is based on the place the player is taken in the NHL Entry Draft. But also I think that in the new deal, unlike the old, the fee should be paid directly to the European team rather than spread around to other teams which had nothing to do with the development of a particular drafted player. I also think the fee should be higher, but not unreasonably higher. I think all fees should be under $1 million. Some players will be worth more than others, and that worth will be assessed by the place taken in the NHL Entry Draft where those players are judged against the best of their age group from around the world.

That way there is a set price for a player, the fee is substantially higher than it has been, and the money goes directly to the player's club. I think that deal would be sufficient. That way European teams do not cause problems and NHL teams do not cause problems because there is a set fee and neither can act unreasonably according to their self-interests. Checks and balances are in place then.

Another problem caused by European teams is the selectively enforced "compulsory" military duty, and that's another issue that I think should be dealt with in the future agreement. If they are going to enforce "cumpulsory" military duty, they should inforce it uniformly, not selectively.

 

[Kronblom]

Like I have said, I think the best deal would be one in which the tranfer fee, as in the present deal, is based on the place the player is taken in the NHL Entry Draft.

What about european overagers that already are stars in Europe? They may have been drafted late but they are usually ready to step right into the league.

But also I think that in the new deal, unlike the old, the fee should be paid directly to the European team rather than spread around to other teams which had nothing to do with the development of a particular drafted player.

The money was only paid to those clubs that lost players to the NHL.

 

[DutchLeafsfan]

As it is, even if a player's contract is up the transfer fee still has to be paid, so in effect, the player is a slave to whatever European club own's their rights. Many European clubs won't use this power to cause problems; others will. You can't depend on the goodness of man; you have to take precautions and have checks and balances.

That's called a contract. Legally binding. Something which the player signed. Contrary what some seem to believe (although you seem to have a more nuanced view than most people) the European leagues haven't been created to develop talent and then ship it to the NHL. These leagues are professional leagues as well, and suffer significantly from talent leaving. Keep in mind that these players are just leaving despite having a contract with their team. I don't see the reason why the clubs should not have the authority to either decide whether they want to take the money offered for their player, or consider the fee to be too low and hence be better off by keeping the player for the term of his contract. Independent arbitrators don't make any sense at all either; the contract is between the club and the player some other team wants. There is no law or rule which states that a team has the duty to let a player go if he wants to go somewhere else.


As for the fee... While hockey is comercially a smaller sport worldwide, and hence probably shoudl never reach the level of fees in soccer, I'd say 2 million is closer to modest than to outrageous. I'd say the damages of all Russian top players leaving for the NHL are far greater for the RSL than the current compensation fees.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

One for, of compensation that might be awkward but relatively fair migt be based on a percentage of the contracts the player receives in the NHL over a period of time instead of a fee when he leaves.

Cause, let's face it, if you pay $2,000,000 for a player who leaves North America after 2-3 years because of injury or something, that might suck. But there absolutely needs to be proper compensation.

It's good and fair for all parties involved, including the NHL.

 

[Foppa_Rules]

What about european overagers that already are stars in Europe? They may have been drafted late but they are usually ready to step right into the league.

The money was only paid to those clubs that lost players to the NHL.

They will have to come up with a part of the deal to address over-agers.

Are you sure? I thought the money was given to the IIHF and spread around to different teams.

 

[Foppa_Rules]

That's called a contract. Legally binding. Something which the player signed. Contrary what some seem to believe (although you seem to have a more nuanced view than most people) the European leagues haven't been created to develop talent and then ship it to the NHL. These leagues are professional leagues as well, and suffer significantly from talent leaving. Keep in mind that these players are just leaving despite having a contract with their team. I don't see the reason why the clubs should not have the authority to either decide whether they want to take the money offered for their player, or consider the fee to be too low and hence be better off by keeping the player for the term of his contract. Independent arbitrators don't make any sense at all either; the contract is between the club and the player some other team wants. There is no law or rule which states that a team has the duty to let a player go if he wants to go somewhere else.


As for the fee... While hockey is comercially a smaller sport worldwide, and hence probably shoudl never reach the level of fees in soccer, I'd say 2 million is closer to modest than to outrageous. I'd say the damages of all Russian top players leaving for the NHL are far greater for the RSL than the current compensation fees.

Like I have said, the current tranfer fees aren't enough. I think everyone agrees on that.

European clubs cannot be allowed to stop a player from coming to the NHL. Ovechkin is one example--he wants to come to the NHL as soon as possible. Dynamo Moscow should not be allowed to stop him if he wants to come. But they ask this outrageous price hoping to either dig their hands as deep as possible into the Caps' pocketbook, or to keep Ovechkin in the Superleague.

Without rules, there are no rules, and anything goes. We can't depend on the goodness of men to keep everything fair. Rules have to be in place or cheating will result from the confusion. If there are rules, then people are either obeying or disobeying the rules--there are only two options. If there are no rules, then people just do what they want. That's not a good situation. If there is a set fee, there is no room for either party to take advantage of the other.

The players aren't supposed to be slaves--if they want to play in the best league in the world, and if they are good enough, others should not be able to stop them just because there are no rules.

 

[Kronblom]

They will have to come up with a part of the deal to address over-agers.

Are you sure? I thought the money was given to the IIHF and spread around to different teams.

Yes, I´m 100% sure.
The money was given to the IIHF, you are right there. But the IIHF only dished out money to those clubs that the player had represented in Europe, not only the team he just left though they get the biggest piece of course.

Sorry for any misunderstanding in my previous post, you could read more about the agreement between NHL & IIHF here if you knew swedish: http://www.difhockey.se/nyhet.php?news=295. A onetime payment of $115 000 per player if 65-70 players from Europe were signed, the money increased if fewer players signed but it was never below that amount. The older deal was $50 000 and various bonuses if the players reached a certain amount of games or points.

Though it doesn´t look too good for any players from Europe that wish to play in the NHL the upcoming season, none has signed so far and I don´t expect any to do so either before a new agreement is settled between the NHL and the IIHF.

As far as I know the NHL refuses the clubs to negotiate direct with the european teams in order to avoid that certain (russian?) teams drives up the prices. That´s what we have been reading over here anyway in the newspapers. The good thing about having no agreement is that the teams get compensated properly if they lose players under contract, the bad thing is that the NHL-clubs may only sign players without contract which would mean $0 to the european teams.

 

[DutchLeafsfan]

European clubs cannot be allowed to stop a player from coming to the NHL. Ovechkin is one example--he wants to come to the NHL as soon as possible. Dynamo Moscow should not be allowed to stop him if he wants to come. But they ask this outrageous price hoping to either dig their hands as deep as possible into the Caps' pocketbook, or to keep Ovechkin in the Superleague.

Without rules, there are no rules, and anything goes. We can't depend on the goodness of men to keep everything fair. Rules have to be in place or cheating will result from the confusion. If there are rules, then people are either obeying or disobeying the rules--there are only two options. If there are no rules, then people just do what they want. That's not a good situation. If there is a set fee, there is no room for either party to take advantage of the other.

Ovechkin has a contract with Dynamo, which as far as I know was signed by him when he was quite sane. Hence, the contract is legally binding, and Dynamo are in no way obliged (nor should they) to just let him walk. If the Capitals and Dynamo can figure out a transfer fee that is acceptable to both teams, there is a deal, if not he stays in Russia and comes over for free after a year, under the current (lack of) agreement.

This situation will also cause clubs to be somewhat careful in their demands; they know they will lose their player eventually, yet are able to get money for him from an NHL team while he still has a contract. Hence while they will try to get as much money as they can, they cannot overask either, as this would mean the NHL team will let the player walk for free a bit later. After a short period of time, the market will establish itself, withou the need for independent arbitrators.

 

[modestfwd]

Think of it as a trade, The Caps give 2 million and Russia gives Ovechkin.
WHICH IS FAIR!

And, if Ovechkin is really as great as everyone says he is, $2,000,000 is a LOW sum.

The Pens got 4 million for Kovalev. Russia should get AT LEAST 2 million for Ovechkin.

I really can't see how this isn't fair. The RSL is a professional league just like the NHL. Teams want to keep their best players to stay competitive. Teams in the RSL don't have to give their players to the NHL. Think about it if things were the other way around.For example:
ATL has Kovalchuck. However, Kovalchuck wants to play back in Russia. But he is still under contract to ATL. In this fake scenario, Russia has the elite league. Russia wants the best players in their league, and the best players want to play in Russia.
Do you think it is fair that while Kovalchuck is under contract, Russia can just sign him and just give ATL $200,000?
ATL's top player would be gone, and the Thrashers would take a huge step back in their goal of winning the cup.
Now if ATL got X amount of money back from Russia, they could sign some players/prospects and not fall down the standings as quickly.

Some posters really have to escape the mindset that European leagues NEED the NHL to survive, when it is actually the opposite.

 

[Deleted member 3032]

I'm surprised that people think it's crazy that a Russian club would want a significant amount of money for the best young player in their league. People here are acting as if it's the NHL's right to have these players, or that the Russian clubs need to have check and balances to make sure they don't demand too much if they're given the "privilege" of dealing with a team one on one rather then being told what they will get in return. I think the soccer system is exactly how it should be as far as international transfers go. Dynamo doesn't want to sell Ovechkin? Why should they? Why shouldn't they be allowed to demand $50 million if they want? The soccer system works fine, and I'm sure it'll work fine for hockey. Demanding too much for a player that wants to leave? Well, he'll sign with that team when his contract runs out then, and then the team will get nothing. If Washington doesn't want to pay then tough for them. Wait a year, then see if Ovechkin is willing to sign with them instead of Dynamo.

 

[Foppa_Rules]

Hockey isn't soccer. For one thing, a lot more people fit into a soccer stadium than a hockey rink--which means more revenues for soccer than for hockey--therefore prices can be higher for soccer than for hockey.

 

[Grave77digger]

the more i think about it the more i think it IS fair... but its only fair if you consider the prospect "a sure thing" and can step in soon. I wouldnt pay 2 million for Malkin considering he needs to develop a bit more before making an impact...

I wouldnt give a million for a completely unproven prospect

 

[DutchLeafsfan]

Hockey isn't soccer. For one thing, a lot more people fit into a soccer stadium than a hockey rink--which means more revenues for soccer than for hockey--therefore prices can be higher for soccer than for hockey.

Well, I think on average the ticket prices are higher in th NHL. Still, the total amount of money circulating in hockey is obviously less than in soccer, which is popular worldwide.

The market principle used in soccer however is independent of the amount of money involved in a sport. If Team B wants a player from Team A who is still under contract, they will open negotiations. Team A will determine their asking price, and Team B will decide if they consider the fee to be reasonable. If they don't, they will wait until the player's contract expires and he leaves for free. Team B knows this as well, so will not ask for a too high price if they accept the leaving of said player, as that would get nothing in return if they ask too much. However, for the leaving of a certain player, teams will want to get a fair compensation, as their team is weakened significantly by this deal. If they do not want the player to leave before his contract expires, they have no boligation to negotiate in the first place. The player signed a legally binding contract, and whether or not the NHL wants a player, he is bound by the contract he signed himself.

 

[Strizzi]

The players aren't supposed to be slaves--if they want to play in the best league in the world, and if they are good enough, others should not be able to stop them just because there are no rules.

It's funny that you use the word 'slave' here... From this point of view, NHL players are even more slaves, as they cannot change to the team they'd like even when they have no running contract with the team which holds their rights. The RFA thing is even more slavery than what you're criticizing, if you want to look at it from this perspective.

(note that I quite like that NHL system, it's just that you criticize something it does aswell)

 

[Taze]

Actually, what God given right NHL teams even have for drafting players? Of course it's meant to balance the league, but shouldn't it (in market economy) be that any team could sign any player for his market value? Sure it would benefit the bigger teams, but if salary hard cap is put to place, those teams still couldn't gather all the best players.

IMO it's about time for European teams to get market value from their top players.

 

[Foppa_Rules]

It's funny that you use the word 'slave' here... From this point of view, NHL players are even more slaves, as they cannot change to the team they'd like even when they have no running contract with the team which holds their rights. The RFA thing is even more slavery than what you're criticizing, if you want to look at it from this perspective.

(note that I quite like that NHL system, it's just that you criticize something it does aswell)

But the players are where they want to be--in the NHL, the best league in the world. Generally players don't want to jump ship and abandon their teammates for another team.

 

[GodZillaAteMyZamboni]

IMO it's about time for European teams to get market value from their top players.

I wonder if these same European teams would be lining up to pay for a North American player who played in Europe?