What Jokerit joing the KHL means for Sweden.
- Thread starter PSGJ
- Start date
Attendance is hardly irrelevant. Along with being a significant revenue stream for plenty of professional leagues around the world it is also a pretty good indicator of general interest in a team/league/sport.
I agreed that talking about results from pre-season/exhibition games is pretty pointless but that didn't stop you from using it to try to prove a point early in the thread.
But since you want to talk about things like 'politics/dimplomacy', 'economy' (which apparently paid attendance has nothing to do with) and 'sport' I will try to oblige.
And the NHL is more powerful than any Euro league, the ET or the KHL. The existance of the NHL within 'world hockey' hasn't prevented any of those entities from growing in recent years so I am not sure how the existance of the KHL means nothing else will be able to grow or thrive.
Do we know if Jokerit will be pulling out of the ET? I don't see many clubs jumping off of the ET bandwagon. Hasn't the number of teams entering it grown?
Those involved in the KHL have poured millions (billions?
) into the sport. If I was Fasel I wouldn't be against the KHL expanding either. Did he also go on to say that he believes it is in the best interest of the sport if all leagues, clubs and national federations submit to the wishes of the KHL? If not I am not sure what your point is because as far as I know Fasel still wants to see a 'Champions League' type tournament. It is possible to want both competitions to thrive.And with those companies on board how much closer is the KHL to being a break even enterprise? At this point the KHL 'economy' is built around finding someone/thing willing to sink millions into a club. I don't think in most cases a club that jumps to the KHL is going to see a significant (any?) increase in gate revenue, sponsorship and TV rights. Basically a Swedish, German, Swiss, etc club can have a budget of $10 million/year, continue to lose their best players to the NHL or wealthy KHL clubs, but contend for a championship every year in their domestic league or spend $10 million/year, continue to lose their best players to the NHL or wealthy KHL clubs and be midpack or worse in the KHL every year.
Huh? GM isn't sponsoring the KHL in hopes of increasing Chevy sales in Sweden. That's like saying someone in Brazil who buys a Honda is supporting the NHL.
This was your 'sport' point? Sounds like this should be under economy. The SM-Liiga really isn't that much more of a feeder to the KHL than Dinamo Riga is. At the risk of repeating myself if a club outside of the KHL can't afford to financially compete with SKA, Ak Bars, Omsk, CSKA, Ufa, etc moving to the KHL isn't going to fix the issue on its own. Unless the club can find a way to double, triple, quadruple their budget, they are still going to be losing their best players.
vorky
@vorkywh24
- Jan 23, 2010
- 11,413
- 1,272
Attendance is hardly irrelevant. Along with being a significant revenue stream for plenty of professional leagues around the world it is also a pretty good indicator of general interest in a team/league/sport.
I agreed that talking about results from pre-season/exhibition games is pretty pointless but that didn't stop you from using it to try to prove a point early in the thread.
But since you want to talk about things like 'politics/dimplomacy', 'economy' (which apparently paid attendance has nothing to do with) and 'sport' I will try to oblige.
If you want to talk about attendance and if you claim there is "no interest of fans", explain me this.
Total KHL attendance RS
08/09 - 2 986 934
09/10 - 3 528 188
10/11 - 3 400 273
11/12 - 3 276 394
12/13 - 3 921 832
Difference cca 1M within 5 yrs, not bad
NHL´s main market is not Europe. ET is not threat for NHL. KHL can be a threat, but NHL does not have power to do something with it. Russians have money, so NHL can not do anymothing just to follow and cooperate. This is NOT my main argument, but you started with this point of view.
I said many times, there is a scenario that KHL is no.1 and ET no.2. Did you read my posts?? KHL has no problem with ET until ET wants to replace KHL as best league of Europe.
Why should Jokerit pull out of ET? Does not make sense.
My point is that Fasel was "pro Champions League" and "anti-KHL" a few years back, but something changed... now he is "pro-KHL", supports KHL´s expansion.Those involved in the KHL have poured millions (billions?
I am not aware of Fasel´s speech of "it is in the best interest of the sport ..." but I am aware of following speech of Kummola, vicepresident of IIHF
here
If he were against KHL, he would say something like "KHL is bad move for Jokerit and finnish, interantional hockey".
KHL as enterprise has profit. If you want to talk about clubs, lets start with Phoenix or football clubs.
Irrelevant. I have a feeling, you did not get idea.
It was not only sport point. We can talk about growing hockey in non-hockey regions etc. We can talk about more money involved in hockey as sport (and compare it to ET), supporting junior hockey. It is endless.
SML would be better league if no player moved to KHL this off season. Unfortunatelly for SML, finnish clubs can not afford these players. I ask why, if someone claims here that "KHL is not much better than SHL, SML etc". Does not make sense to move abroad if I have similar league at home, in my city. Or is it all about money??
KHL club (you said about Dinamo Riga) gets paid for losing young (RFA) player to lets say Omsk. SMLiiga club, according to Jussi, gets nothing if a player has free KHL out clause. I dont know man, but if I were a owner of club, I would choose KHL over euro league.
Jussi
Registered User
That is exactly what he said two years ago when the then majority owner of Blues, Jussi Salonoja, asked if his team could move to KHL (there were eventually other issues at the Russian end that quenched that idea as well). Kummola and Harkimo (as a shareholder in SM-Liiga) both voted no then. Curiously his mind changed when it involved Hartwall Areena, where the national federation (and now doubt Kummola himself by twists and loops) have a financial stake. Two years ago Kummola wouldn't have benefited financially in any capacity, this time it's different.
If you want to talk about attendance and if you claim there is "no interest of fans", explain me this.
Total KHL attendance RS
08/09 - 2 986 934
09/10 - 3 528 188
10/11 - 3 400 273
11/12 - 3 276 394
12/13 - 3 921 832
Difference cca 1M within 5 yrs, not bad
I had no doubt attendance had improved. Hopefully attendance can continue to go up.
So in the year 2013 the difference between being important and having people interested and not being important and not having people interested is about 400 fans per game?
IMHO (not that it matters) I think KHL attendance is fine. I just find your arguement (here and in other threads) that attendance and interest is poor in other European leagues ridiculous.
This paragraph is hard to follow. I don't think the NHL is going to be taking orders from the KHL anytime soon though.
I did?
Yes, I read your posts. Not sure what you are expecting me to say. Perhaps if this was a legit rumour with some details on how it would all work I would have given it some thought and had an opinion on it. At this point though as far as I can tell it is just a vague idea presented on a message board. By the sounds of it you are basically proposing a 'KHL1' and 'KHL2'. Could it work? I dunno.
I don't think the ET wants to replace any league. The ET isn't even a league.
I don't know if Jokerit wants to pull out or not and that's why I was asking you.
Based on your response I assume Jokerit intends to stay involved in the ET. If this is the case it would seem Jokerit is still a supporter of the ET. Isn't this actually a good thing for the ET as they are gaining a club from Europe's strongest league? That's good for the KHL and... well that's it. Not sure what else I am suppose to take away from this.
It's a shame Gazprom wasn't interested in adding an NHL team to their portfolio.
Pretty sure everyone agrees that Phoenix is a dumpster fire. Not sure how bringing up the Coyotes refutes my original point though. Clubs in Europe, if wishing to be competitive in the KHL, would have to find a way to increase their revenue significantly or run the risk of also becoming a dumpster fire. Obviously if these clubs could find something or someone to back them indefinitely they wouldn't have to worry about revenues but I am not sure how well the 'oligarch model' is going to work outside of Russia.
As far as soccer clubs go I think a lot of people would tell you that the spending:revenue ratio is getting a bit scary.
You would be correct. I have no idea what your point was.
Growth is good. No one is going to argue with that. Not sure what your point is though. The only way to grow the game is through the KHL?
Once again not sure where you are going with this. I am thinking teams involved in the ET have invested plenty of money into the sport and have also supported junior hockey.
They aren't bankrolled by oligarchs and regional governments?
Not sure I am following but... I would say it is mostly about money. Europeans would have never started going to the NHL in large numbers if it wasn't for the money. I would say the same applies to the KHL.
I dunno... Spend 10 million and contend for title every year or spend 10 million and hope to sneak into the playoffs.
QnebO
Wheel, snipe, celly
- Feb 11, 2010
- 9,763
- 644
It's not mostly, its all only about money. Money does buy nice comments for the press, thought. Of course most of sane finnish persons would like to play in Finland, but if the gap between salaries is in millions, too bad, they would play anywere, unelss maybe in North Korea or Somalia.
Sorry about late reply. I did forgot this.
Exodus has been going on since the Bosman rule. After 95-96 season 60 players from SML leaved abroad including half of the top 30 point leaders. In 2005-2006 season there was more than hundred players playing abroad (counting only NHL contracts,Elitserien and NLA). Non of them in Russia. Now that overall number is slightly smaller but the impact is much bigger. We have made mistakes.
I just fail to see how one team joining to KHL would help our hockey in this situation and I haven´t yet heard any good explanations. As you have said KHL´s number one goal is to develope Russian hockey. Also as said Kummola isn´t the right person to quote in these things. I´m too ashamed to even write what his explanision was on Jokerit move.
I do believe that this all has been said many times and I don´t want to start another circle. And this in Swedish section so SML issues are bit OT in here.
I think there are many players in the KHL that could play in the NHL, absolutely. Replace the bottom 100 players in the NHL, mostly North Americans, with the 100 top players in the KHL and I am very positive the NHL would have better players. Disagree?
I could not resist, I thought this was kind of funny.
I think there are many players in the KHL that could play in the NHL, absolutely. Replace the bottom 100 players in the NHL, mostly North Americans, with the 100 top players in the KHL and I am very positive the NHL would have better players. Disagree?
I could not resist, I thought this was kind of funny.
Why is that funny? They're two different people with different opinions or am I missing something?
their not allowed to have differing opinions over there, either everyone thinks one thing or they think another
I thought it was funny because two hockey fans from the same country, whom both are against a Swedish team in the KHL have the complete opposite view of this matter. One thinks that Swedish teams even with higher budget and better player will be a bottom dweller of the league and make no threat, while the other thinks that one of the top Swedish teams would easily win the GC.
I know it's two different persons.
And when I read your comment it feels like the first thing you felt is that I ridiculed them both. By saying two comments are funny you ridicule someone in Sweden?
And then user Dosing more or less said that we are not allowed to have a different opinions in my country. Which I wholeheartedly took as an insult, and I feel a bit sad now to be honest. Did I really deserve that?
habsrule4eva3089
Registered User
- Nov 22, 2008
- 4,197
- 898
Very VERY false. Define better. Perhaps in the area of more talented SOME, but the others, do they bring what the grinders and fourth line pugilists bring. No, they would be thrown away by fans in Montreal, Boston and Philly and most of the NHL where tough in your face, work your ass off Hockey is the name of the game. Most of the top scorers in the KHL all require an opportunity to play in the top 6 and they bring nothing to the depth position. Your kidding yourself if you think 100 players in the KHL are NHL worthy, don't underestimate the competition level. Just breezing through the top 50 scorers and from my recollection of seeing the majority of these guys play, your incredibly lucky if you can count 2 dozens who can even label themselves as top players that can perform if given a chance in a top 6 role.
I define better as in overall better or equal to. It's at least what my point was.
I'm sorry but I did not really understand what you said for the most of it.
Correct me if I am wrong now, but as I understood you said that the worst 100 players in NHL are stronger, tougher and overall better than the best 100 players in the KHL with same role on the ice? If so I disagree with this. I am positive I could replace a lot of Americans and Canadians with Europeans from the KHL. And many North Americans did just the season before they came to the KHL play in the NHL. Same with a lot of the Europeans.
And the last bolded part about the top 6 role, can you explain it because I don't understand it. Do you mean the top 100 players in the KHL no one could be one of the top 6 players in any team? If so it's strange since I was talking about the worst players spots in the NHL not the best players.
svartgul
Hata Löven
@robwangjing A hockey team needs different types of players with various skills. Some are passing wizards, some are natural goal scorers, some are fast skating and hard hitting etc. The game of hockey has evolved so that team depth and lines combinations are very important to get right if you want to win. I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to when you say "skilled" players, I assume you mean they are good at offensive qualities like puck possession, passing and scoring. Unfortunately you can't have a team filled with players that only have these kind of skills, you need various skills to be successful and there is also a budgetary issue with this. This is often reffeed to "Top 6" or "Bottom 6" roles, where there are two offensive lines and two defensive lines on a team although that's a bit of an oversimplification and quite a dated configuration, atleast in Sweden. Many of the best players in Europe that are offensive minded and skilled in those areas aren't good enough or do not possess the right qualities to earn a Top 6 role in NHL teams, and their skillset are not suited for a Bottom 6 role so they bust and go back to Europe.
You are right in your assessment that if you look at the Top 100 players in the KHL there sure are players that are good enough to play in a Top 6 role in many NHL clubs. Why they are not in the NHL depends on many factors. Maybe they prefer the to play in the KHL, they might have a great salary there already, maybe they played in the NHL got sent to the AHL and gave up after a couple of years etc. I would claim most of the time the players are just not good enough to secure a spot on the lineup corresponding to their required skillset. There is also a tradition in the NHL of preferential treatment of North Americans over Europeans to factor in (this fact north americans would vehemently deny)
You are right in your assessment that if you look at the Top 100 players in the KHL there sure are players that are good enough to play in a Top 6 role in many NHL clubs. Why they are not in the NHL depends on many factors. Maybe they prefer the to play in the KHL, they might have a great salary there already, maybe they played in the NHL got sent to the AHL and gave up after a couple of years etc. I would claim most of the time the players are just not good enough to secure a spot on the lineup corresponding to their required skillset. There is also a tradition in the NHL of preferential treatment of North Americans over Europeans to factor in (this fact north americans would vehemently deny)
