vorky
@vorkywh24
- Jan 23, 2010
- 11,607
- 1,374
, I agree with @GaboriklessWild (#49)
There are regions of Slovakia without hockey, there is not even a training rink (without seats or a few hundred) in some regions. The biggest problem is that kids sitting in front of PC instead of going out to do a sport.
The user is right with the IIHF/NHL transfer rules.
Czech-Slovak hockey league was good, developed many great players. The same can be said about the Soviet league. Then, the system collapsed, new states were created. What did happen in hockey? Of course, the former training centres ceased to exist, the system of players development(not only hockey) ceased to exist. A state stopped to finance the sport as much as earlier. And of course, the NHL grabbed the hockey market in both countries (and Russia). If the clubs were protected by rules as in football, they could get some money on their development. They got nothing, but top-notch players left to the NHL.
Of course, Slovak football was affected by the same problems (the state stopped to finance, training centres ceased to exist), but there is one big difference, as said by @GaboriklessWild, the transfer rules. These rules helped football clubs to revive because they see the future if they develop a top player (Zilina is a good example, Trencin is another). That does not exist in hockey.
Remember Tatar? He had a contract with Zvolen, of course, an NHL club was interested in, he left without a compensation (Slovakia did not sign NHL Transfer Agreement at the time).
Current transfer rules are cancer for European hockey. It is unacceptable that a solidarity mechanism does not work, that there is no protection of minors, that a club having a valid deal with a player has no right in his transfer to another club/league.
If European governments and local authorities did not finance hockey, European hockey would be death. But yeah, they inviting the NHL to a challenging game versus the Champions Hockey League´s winner instead of fixing transfer rules.
There are regions of Slovakia without hockey, there is not even a training rink (without seats or a few hundred) in some regions. The biggest problem is that kids sitting in front of PC instead of going out to do a sport.
The user is right with the IIHF/NHL transfer rules.
Czech-Slovak hockey league was good, developed many great players. The same can be said about the Soviet league. Then, the system collapsed, new states were created. What did happen in hockey? Of course, the former training centres ceased to exist, the system of players development(not only hockey) ceased to exist. A state stopped to finance the sport as much as earlier. And of course, the NHL grabbed the hockey market in both countries (and Russia). If the clubs were protected by rules as in football, they could get some money on their development. They got nothing, but top-notch players left to the NHL.
Of course, Slovak football was affected by the same problems (the state stopped to finance, training centres ceased to exist), but there is one big difference, as said by @GaboriklessWild, the transfer rules. These rules helped football clubs to revive because they see the future if they develop a top player (Zilina is a good example, Trencin is another). That does not exist in hockey.
Remember Tatar? He had a contract with Zvolen, of course, an NHL club was interested in, he left without a compensation (Slovakia did not sign NHL Transfer Agreement at the time).
Current transfer rules are cancer for European hockey. It is unacceptable that a solidarity mechanism does not work, that there is no protection of minors, that a club having a valid deal with a player has no right in his transfer to another club/league.
If European governments and local authorities did not finance hockey, European hockey would be death. But yeah, they inviting the NHL to a challenging game versus the Champions Hockey League´s winner instead of fixing transfer rules.