2014-2015 Champions Hockey League

[Jussi]

Nothing. What, other Euro leagues have prize money for the champ?

I don't know about other European leagues but in Finland the ticket sales revenue is split among the top 4 teams from the semifinals stage onward, with the champions getting the biggest share.

The point was, why diss the prize money and CHL and then praise the KHL when they're not paying anything either?

 

[Den]

I don't know about other European leagues but in Finland the ticket sales revenue is split among the top 4 teams from the semifinals stage onward, with the champions getting the biggest share.

The point was, why diss the prize money and CHL and then praise the KHL when they're not paying anything either?

The reason to participate in a non-domestic league is 1) financial, 2) sport/prestige.

Financially the ChHl is wanting.

I buy the need for a pan-Euro competition. It's good for the sport and interesting. I just hope that this does not go the way of the ChCup after it is won by a Swedish team 4 times in a row with no substential improvement of the prize money in sight.

 

[ForumNamePending]

The reason to participate in a non-domestic league is 1) financial, 2) sport/prestige.

Financially the ChHl is wanting.

Ideally there would millions and millions of $ involved backing the thing but I don't think it is an absolute necessity. Like I said earlier in the thread...

The CHL is going to have a lot to prove and the jury is still very much out on it, but I don't think you need to have huge prize money at stake to make it a success. It looks like the prize money up for grabs in basketball's Euroleague is pretty small, but the people who run that competition have managed to build it into something that matters to clubs, players and fans.

 

[Jussi]

The reason to participate in a non-domestic league is 1) financial, 2) sport/prestige.

Financially the ChHl is wanting.

I buy the need for a pan-Euro competition. It's good for the sport and interesting. I just hope that this does not go the way of the ChCup after it is won by a Swedish team 4 times in a row with no substential improvement of the prize money in sight.

You mean a Russian?

 

[Den]

You mean a Russian?

KHL is not participating

 

[Jussi]

KHL is not participating

I meant the Champions Cup was won by a Russian team 4 times a row, not Swedish.

 

[Den]

I meant the Champions Cup was won by a Russian team 4 times a row, not Swedish.

Well, I think we'll see a perrenial Swidish CHL champ...

 

[Jussi]

Well, I think we'll see a perrenial Swidish CHL champ...

Just like in ET?

 

[Den]

Just like in ET?

More or less.

 

[Jussi]

More or less.

You do realize that only once(out of 4) has a Swedish team won the ET?

 

[EbencoyE]

And a Swiss team won the last Champions League.... In fact, the Swedish teams were pretty terrible that year.

On topic: Idea is good. Europe needs a continental league as KHL is growing more and more. Although I don't understand why no Slovak team was invited (Kosice). They have nice arena and I could imagine 7k-8k spectators on CHL games.

There will be wild cards available. Unless you mean licensed teams? That probably has more to do with finances.

 

[Den]

You do realize that only once(out of 4) has a Swedish team won the ET?

Yes, but they still performed better than anybody else.

 

[Jussi]

Yes, but they still performed better than anybody else.

Except most importantly, winning it.

 

[Vicente]

I still haven't gotten an answer to how much KHL pays their champion. Since KHL is supposed to be so much more lucrative than the Champions League...

Teams don't play in a competition just for the prize money - which would cover only an incredibly small amount of their budgets in the case of winning a certain title - but to make money and offer a good product to fans and sponsors.

The question will be: is CHL the better chance to make some extra profits next to domestic league and thus a success or is KHL the better option? Many people forget that CHL only requires small extra expenses while in KHL you have to throw around with huge money.

So the chance that an SHL team with CHL participation is actually economically more successful than a Swedish KHL team could be very likely.

 

[obskyr]

?? I kind of stopped understanding what you are saying

Prices for Russians are irrelevant since I was talking about Russian visas for Swedes.

35$ that I quoted is what I paid in Stockholm for my wife, and also what is quoted on the Rus embassy's webpage in Finnland.

If you search the net, you will find a billion intermediate companies that would collect your paperwork and take it to the embassy for you - and yeas, those will charge 100$ or more.

Travel agencies usually are the only sensible way. For instance, from what I've heard from Finnish citizens, it's impossible for them to get Russian multivisas on their own, the Federal Migration Service simply rejects that. The only way to do that is to use agency services that will cost you ~€150.

But it is not the same for other regions. It really looks like regions that border on EU, like St. Pete and Kalinigrad are given the preference.

Well, it is simpler here, because the only Finnish diplomatic missions outside of Moscow (that are pretty much the easiest way to get a Schengen visa for a Russian citizen) happen to be located in Petersburg, Karelia and Murmansk. It's also easier and more natural for the northwesterners to travel in the EU, and first of all Finland, due to the geographic proximity. But nonetheless, for the rest of the country it still isn't nearly as problematic as it is for Finland.

 

[Cassano]

Very interesting idea. Will be even better if there is a Club World Cup between the top NHL team and the CL winner.

 

[obskyr]

The point is that travel between EU and Russia should be visa free: Russian income per capita has exceeded that of Bulgaria and Romania, and is certainly higher than that of many countries with whom EU has visa free travel, like Brazil or Argentina, or Albania or Macedonia.

The true reason is that there is no political will from the EU. It's good old fear of the russkies.

Short-term visas between the EU and Russia were expected to be abolished by the end of this year. Quite frankly the main obstacles this time weren't political in nature. But if we're talking about the political claims presented by the EU officails, they aren't unsubstantial either. The decisions made by Putin and his administration over the last couple of years (or even 13 years in the big picture) aren't something the EU, claiming to be true to its principles, may neglect or tolerate. Putin may have made it clear on numerous occasions that he's impervious to the calls coming from the Russian citizens, but he isn't exactly bulletrpoof at the international arena, so the EU is in the position to use that in its interests. The image of Russia in the western media or a mistrust of some sorts would be the least of concern here.

I'd also add that the visa talk isn't much of an OT here, it's a serious issue for the whole KHL expansion thing.

 

[Den]

Short-term visas between the EU and Russia were expected to be abolished by the end of this year. Quite frankly the main obstacles this time weren't political in nature.

Not according to what I have read. Short-stay term would not be abolshied by this year. The Eurocommission pointed out 4 things in the report this December:

1) The way the documents are protected. Having seen Argentine passport, this claim is a joke.
Among other things they mention that the name change policy in Russia is too libiral
2) Immigration policy
3) Corruption
4) Freedom of movement

Can't comment on 2) an 4) since don't now the details of the claims there, but if 3) is not politics, than what is.

Here is a read, in Russian though:
http://www.gazeta.ru/politics/2013/12/18_a_5809377.shtml

 

[Den]

Putin may have made it clear on numerous occasions that he's impervious to the calls coming from the Russian citizens, but he isn't exactly bulletrpoof at the international arena, so the EU is in the position to use that in its interests.

This approach has 0 usefullness or leverage: all the Russian bigshots have long term visas, and the situation either way does not effect them.

On the other hand, I have a couple unwritten words for the EU every time, whenever my mother has to travel from South Russia to St. Petersberg simply to be able to go the consulate there to apply for visa to visit us.

Way to go to use the leverage.

 

[Den]

Travel agencies usually are the only sensible way. For instance, from what I've heard from Finnish citizens,

No

Again, I don't buy into "I have heard", since I have done that many times.

But the deal is that you need documentation of where you gonna stay, tickets and a special form filled out by the hotel, more or less to apply. These you can get yourself, and than take that to the embassy. Or you can have an agency do the whole thing. The second is easier, and they would charge you for sure.

 

[pakovits]

That's what I am saying, the CHL winner is playing 6+4=10 extra games. That's 1/6 of the domestic season.

Is 500K 1/6 of a FEL top team budget?

why is this even important? clubs are suppose to make money from tickets, sponsors and maybe tv. if this tournament attracts enough fans it will also attract sponsors and it will be financially justified. the prize money is a red herring.

 

[Jussi]

Medvedev has confirmed more talks in January will take place.

 

[EbencoyE]

Very interesting idea. Will be even better if there is a Club World Cup between the top NHL team and the CL winner.

Won't happen. NHL has nothing to gain from potentially losing a world title. That's why they just sent random teams to the Victoria Cup. (Although interestingly enough it worked out that the Stanley Cup Champion (Chicago) ended up playing the CHL champion ZSC Zurich and lost in the second and final year of the Victoria Cup)

NHL is trying to market themselves as the best league in the world. A "World Championship" would either only confirm what most people already think or would destroy the NHL's reputation - thus there is no positive benefit for their participation.

This is probably the same reason the KHL doesn't want to participate in this CHL. Why bother risk losing to non-KHL clubs when you're trying to present yourself as the best league in Europe? Clearly Gazprom was upset that the Russian teams didn't dominate the last CHL from the fact that they pulled the plug of their sponsorship and destroyed the whole project. They would probably do the same again, so why bother?

 

[Mory Schneideur*]

Very interesting idea. Will be even better if there is a Club World Cup between the top NHL team and the CL winner.

I'm thinking they will bring the Victoria Cup back, only I'm hoping this time they make it a proper tourney with 8+ teams

 

[eme]

This is probably the same reason the KHL doesn't want to participate in this CHL. Why bother risk losing to non-KHL clubs when you're trying to present yourself as the best league in Europe? Clearly Gazprom was upset that the Russian teams didn't dominate the last CHL from the fact that they pulled the plug of their sponsorship and destroyed the whole project. They would probably do the same again, so why bother?

They actually wanted to take part, CHL owner teams and KHL couldnt come up with an agreement, apparently partly because Jokerit was not allowed to participate, among other things. Personally I think that KHL wanted a bigger role in the ownership and more power in the decision making than what was proposed (apparently not much), but this is just guessing since both parties have been rather vague in commentating the all the reasons behind the decission.