I think it is fair to say the jury is still very much out on this thing and the fact at this point in the tournament, at least judging by attendance, it hasn't picked up a whole lot of momentum has to be somewhat of a concern for the organizers. With that said, IMHO it's still way to early to write the tournament off as a failure. Based on what those involved in the tournament are saying they seem to be in it for the long haul and the fact it isn't being played out in front of huge crowds at this point is hardly shocking to them.
I think for the tournament to be a long term success it is going to have to overcome three obstacles...
1) The stigma of past failed tournaments - This can only be corrected over time by not outright canning (obviously) or totally overhauling the format after a couple of years. With that said (going off topic) I think a group stage with 44 teams is pretty bloated, given the structure of the competition (founding clubs and all that) I am not sure if it's really possible, but slimming the group stage down to 32 teams might be wise.
2) The perception that it is nothing more than a pre-season/exhibition tournament - To my understanding the knockout stages haven't been lacking for tense dramatic games played at a high level so hopefully over time the clubs apparently caring will rub off on more fans.
3) Lack of familiarity with teams outside of a given local market - Once again this is going to take time. It's too bad some of those 2nd round matchups that literally couldn't have been closer didn't go the other way as it would probably been better to have teams representing 5 different leagues/countries left in the competition instead of just 2.
...So ya, I guess I think time is important.
As long as the organizers aren't lying and they really are committed (and have the resources) to stick it out I think the CHL could eventually turn into something that matters to most people who care about hockey in Europe.
I agree but my point was different. Does hockey europe need a competition like KHL (it can be a league based on SHL/Liiga not Russia) or CHL (paralell league to domestic leagues). Jokerit etc shows that "KHL" is right direction, fans comes to arenas. ET/CHL shows that fans are not so interested in the competition. ???
The problem with comparing KHL Jokerit and CHL attendance is that Jokerit is only playing in the KHL, while the CHL clubs are also playing in their domestic leagues. I'm quite sure the attendance would be a lot different as well for the teams, should they only enter one competition.
Ya, I don't see what a club necessarily gains by playing in some sort of multi-country 'super' league instead of it's 'traditional' domestic league. Is Frolunda gaining anything by averaging 9-10 thousand in the 'Nordic League' instead of the SHL? Is SC Bern gaining anything by averaging 15-16 thousand in the KHL instead of in NLA? Now if Frolunda and SC Bern 10 years from now can average 9-10 thousand and 15-16 thousand respectively for CHL games on top of their regular league games then they have actually gained something.
Things look to be so far so good for Jokerit in the KHL, but it's a club that saw it's new owners spend (tens of?) millions of $ (well Euros) on strengthening the roster, marketing and renovating its arena, all this and a much improved on ice record over last year has resulted in a increase of about 1300 fans/game... To be honest, given all that, I am not seeing huge gains. Medvescak after moving to the KHL last season saw a drop in attendance. I know this isn't exactly vorky's point but given how well things have been going for the majority of the KHL's EU clubs in 2014 (Lev gone, Slovan and DR apparently barley hanging on) maybe the "KHL model" isn't the way forward for European club hockey.
