IIHF World Rankings

[modofan]

Not so.

The NHL is still better than the IIHF. Not close, actually.

The IIHF has only paid nominal heed to Canada throughout its sorry history. There are concentric circles at the IIHF: Some federations are treated better than others, and some federations (non-European ones) are ignored entirely. The IIHF has, historically, been at the beck and call of a few powerful European ice hockey federations. If it was something more than a European house league, than the IIHF would have confronted the obvious eligibility double standard the soviets exploited for decades. It would have ensured Canada hosted more than 1 IIHF world championships in more than 100 years. It would not have cheated the Canadians of an Olympic gold medal in 1936 or arbitrarily manipulated the rules behind closed doors to steal an Olympic bronze from Canadian amateurs in 1964. Compare the amount of time and energy devoted to nurturing the game in certain European countries to the amount of time and energy devoted to growing the game elsewhere in the world. The IIHF will go to the mat fighting for the best transfer arrangements for (some) European hockey nations, and will express concern about the struggles of junior hockey in (some) European nations, but will not express a similar concern about health and growth issues in Asia or even parts of North America.

The 1996 World Cup featured games contested in Europe.

The IIHF world championships will never feature games played in North America (at least not for another 100 years).

The NHL and any events it puts on have vastly more cachet than anything the IIHF puts on.

The EIHF is a sorry joke.

To even compare NHL and IIHF is an immediate fail. Two different entities, two different purposes. If you don't understand the basic differences between NHL and IIHF, then you really need to do some homework...

 

[Exarz]

Not so.

The NHL is still better than the IIHF. Not close, actually.

The IIHF has only paid nominal heed to Canada throughout its sorry history. There are concentric circles at the IIHF: Some federations are treated better than others, and some federations (non-European ones) are ignored entirely. The IIHF has, historically, been at the beck and call of a few powerful European ice hockey federations. If it was something more than a European house league, than the IIHF would have confronted the obvious eligibility double standard the soviets exploited for decades. It would have ensured Canada hosted more than 1 IIHF world championships in more than 100 years. It would not have cheated the Canadians of an Olympic gold medal in 1936 or arbitrarily manipulated the rules behind closed doors to steal an Olympic bronze from Canadian amateurs in 1964. Compare the amount of time and energy devoted to nurturing the game in certain European countries to the amount of time and energy devoted to growing the game elsewhere in the world. The IIHF will go to the mat fighting for the best transfer arrangements for (some) European hockey nations, and will express concern about the struggles of junior hockey in (some) European nations, but will not express a similar concern about health and growth issues in Asia or even parts of North America.

The 1996 World Cup featured games contested in Europe.

The IIHF world championships will never feature games played in North America (at least not for another 100 years).

The NHL and any events it puts on have vastly more cachet than anything the IIHF puts on.

The EIHF is a sorry joke.

How are they ignored? A few years ago (I don't remember the exact year that was the last one), IIHF had a pre-qualification for the Asian countries to the World Championship. Is that ignoring it? And how is it ignoring, when a certain amount of the money from each World Championship goes to developing hockey in different countries?

Games were played in Europe, and some people went to those games, but after that, I haven't heard a single European watching the rest of the tournament. Do you want European's attention to the World Cup? Give Europe something more than just round robin games!

 

[jekoh]

How are they ignored? A few years ago (I don't remember the exact year that was the last one), IIHF had a pre-qualification for the Asian countries to the World Championship. Is that ignoring it?

Yes from 1998 the IIHF gave a free entry to a far East team at the expense of a more deserving European team.

The claim that the European federations are treated better is therefore completely moronic. But then again is there any of this guy's posts that isn't anti-European BS?

Also, lol @ "the IIHF going to the mat fighting for the best transfer arrangements for European hockey nations"

It's such a great arrangement that the Russians opted out of it altogether.

The level of ignorance in the last few threads is through the roof.

 

[An Argument For]

To even compare NHL and IIHF is an immediate fail. Two different entities, two different purposes. If you don't understand the basic differences between NHL and IIHF, then you really need to do some homework...

I'm going to chalk this up to a language barrier but you and a couple of other posters seem to be missing a lot of the subtleties and nuances in the posts.

In this case though, you clearly didn't comprehend the post or the context.

He said NHL is > IIHF with regards to organizing a tournament.

He did not use it as an all-encompassing statement, which could still be done depending on which criteria you applied to determine what determines better.

 

[An Argument For]

How are they ignored? A few years ago (I don't remember the exact year that was the last one), IIHF had a pre-qualification for the Asian countries to the World Championship. Is that ignoring it? And how is it ignoring, when a certain amount of the money from each World Championship goes to developing hockey in different countries?

Games were played in Europe, and some people went to those games, but after that, I haven't heard a single European watching the rest of the tournament. Do you want European's attention to the World Cup? Give Europe something more than just round robin games!

Yes from 1998 the IIHF gave a free entry to a far East team at the expense of a more deserving European team.

The claim that the European federations are treated better is therefore completely moronic. But then again is there any of this guy's posts that isn't anti-European BS?

Also, lol @ "the IIHF going to the mat fighting for the best transfer arrangements for European hockey nations"

It's such a great arrangement that the Russians opted out of it altogether.

The level of ignorance in the last few threads is through the roof.

This is akin to someone saying.. I'm not racist, I have a such and such as a friend.

Being biased and showing favortism =/= total disregard and neglect for all others.

How much did Russia's opt out have to do with shady business practices and corrupt billionaires throwing around money for their own amusement? The KHL is very atypical for a professional sports league.

 

[jekoh]

This is akin to someone saying.. I'm not racist, I have a such and such as a friend.

Being biased and showing favortism =/= total disregard and neglect for all others.

The only favoritism IIHF has shown was towards Asia at the expense of Europe.

How much did Russia's opt out have to do with shady business practices and corrupt billionaires throwing around money for their own amusement?

Russia opting out of an unfavourable agreement indeed it has a lot to do the NHL's shady business practices I'll give you that.

 

[An Argument For]

The only favoritism IIHF has shown was towards Asia at the expense of Europe. Russia opting out of an unfavourable agreement indeed it has a lot to do the NHL's shady business practices I'll give you that.

Oh yeah... The IIHF has never acted in a manner that was unfavorable to North Americans?

A handful of teams regularly fall behind in paying their players, and even when they do pay, some clubs insist on paying in cash.

“One guy I know, playing for the KHL team in Kazan, was arrested after the team had (marijuana) planted on him,†says Simpson, who now lives in Chicago. “They took him to jail, wanted to sweat him out, pressure him to agree to go back to Canada without getting paid.â€

The same thing happened to John Grahame, a Canadian goalie who played during the 2008-09 season for the KHL team in Omsk, a city in Siberia.

“He was arrested by police for going to a dance club because the team didn’t want to keep paying him,†Simpson said.

Simpson himself was on the verge of accepting a coaching job with the New York Islanders but a former teammate urged him to keep playing in Russia.

“I didn’t do it for the money, I did it for the experience,†Simpson said. “I enjoyed it, but I remember at one point towards the end of my first season with Chekhov going to the rink and they handed me some papers in Russian to sign.â€

The team told Simpson the documents were a formality.

“I had them translated and it turned out the paper was an agreement saying the team didn’t have to pay me my last two cheques,†he said. “I didn’t sign it.â€

http://www.thestar.com/sports/hocke...gs_dodgy_air_travel_all_part_of_the_game.html


lol.. the NHL is soo corrupt.

 

[jekoh]

Oh yeah... The IIHF has never acted in a manner that was unfavorable to North Americans?

No. Stop the whining already.

khl_
drugs_dodgy_air_travel

And the relevance to Russia's opt out of the transfer agreement is... ?

 

[getwiththeprogram*]

To even compare NHL and IIHF is an immediate fail. Two different entities, two different purposes. If you don't understand the basic differences between NHL and IIHF, then you really need to do some homework...

The avowed purpose of the IIHF has been to favor some hockey federations at the expense of other hockey federations (all in the name of "parity," of course, though parity usually seems confined to assisting hockey federations in Europe and not in Asia or North America). You really need to read up on international hockey history. The NHL is a professional league committed to making money for its owners and to producing an entertainment product that will draw spectators and ensconce its place at the top of the pro hockey pecking order.

One is more provincial and parochial and less professional than the other.

I notice that most euros tend to dissemble or evade the issue when someone brings up the harsh reality of IIHF machinations over the years.

Please, do your homework and drop the blinders. You'll see better.

 

[getwiththeprogram*]

The only favoritism IIHF has shown was towards Asia at the expense of Europe.


Russia opting out of an unfavourable agreement indeed it has a lot to do the NHL's shady business practices I'll give you that.

Staggering. And deceitful. Let's deal with the NHL's deceit. We can use the KHL as a starting point.

The NHL worked out a transfer agreement with the KHL in 2008 in good faith even though it was aware of the risk that the KHL posed. It was, in short, prepared to work with the Russians as business partners - hardly the actions of an organization engaged in shady practices

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=243045

Despite the KHL violating an existing NHL contract (see the Radulov case), the NHL agreed in 2011 to a memorandum of understanding on player contracts. The NHL has always wanted a transfer agreement in place whereby their contracts will be respected by the Russians. As Bill Daly noted to the Canadian Press, "we respect their contracts and we expect them to respect ours"

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=371237


The NHL has never been opposed to hammering out the framework for a deal that richly rewards all parties. It expects to pay fair compensation on all player signings and transfers, but does not want to pay confiscatory fees.

Nothing underhanded about it.

The NHL has generously subsidized player development in Europe. It has paid European players millions more than they would make anywhere else and, unlike the KHL, those contracts are protected by rigorous first-world labor and contract laws. It has given them world-class medical care, logistical support, and support for their families. Unlike the KHL, we know where all the money is coming from and who is sending it. It follows accounting and transparency laws and regulations far in advance of what you'll find in Europe (psst, KHL). The NHL's only sin, really, is that it refuses to be sucked dry by federations (and by the IIHF) without some form of reciprocity.

The NHL is not a charity. It's a business. And it's a business that has given a great deal to European hockey while European hockey (save for its great on-ice talent) has given nothing to it.

The anti-NHL bias in your post is an anti-North American prejudice. It's not supported by evidence.

By the way, the EIHF has done next to nothing for hockey in Asia - and it has certainly not sacrificed European interests for the sake of assisting Asian hockey federations. You can't even give instances of what monies the EIHF has paid Asian hockey federations for player development. The monies involved, to the extent they exist, are insignificant. A fraction of the money the EIHF pumps into events and player development in Europe.

 

[jekoh]

Despite the KHL violating an existing NHL contract (see the Radulov case), the NHL agreed in 2011 to a memorandum of understanding on player contracts.

lol, they asked for a MOU because, not "despite" of the Radulov case.

The NHL has always wanted a transfer agreement in place whereby their contracts will be respected by the Russians.

Anf the Russians have always wanted a transfer agreement in place whereby their contracts will be respected by the Russians, which wasn't the case before the aforementioned MOU.

As Bill Daly noted to the Canadian Press, "we respect their contracts and we expect them to respect ours"

The NHL has never been opposed to hammering out the framework for a deal that richly rewards all parties.

Of course it has. Ufa offered to reciprocate the terms of the agreement, ie: pay 200K, and the NHL refused. The simple fact that the "agreement" is not reciprocal makes it shady.

The NHL has never respected European contracts, to the contrary they have taught the players that it's ok to disregard them, that's the whole point of the "agreement".

It expects to pay fair compensation on all player signings and transfers, but does not want to pay confiscatory fees.

Ufa does not want to pay confiscatory fees either so they offered 200K. Sounds fair.

The NHL's only sin, really, is that it refuses to be sucked dry by federations (and by the IIHF) without some form of reciprocity.

You seriously have the nerve to demand "reciprocity" when that's exactly what the NHL has always opposed?

 

[Theokritos]

The avowed purpose of the IIHF has been to favor some hockey federations at the expense of other hockey federations

Not everything that works against you is necessarily a product of ill will.

The NHL is not a charity. It's a business. And it's a business that has given a great deal to European hockey while European hockey (save for its great on-ice talent) has given nothing to it.

Strange sentence. Works the other way too: The NHL has given nothing to European hockey (save for some of its money).

 

[getwiththeprogram*]

lol, they asked for a MOU because, not "despite" of the Radulov case.


Anf the Russians have always wanted a transfer agreement in place whereby their contracts will be respected by the Russians, which wasn't the case before the aforementioned MOU.

The Russians want a contract respected by the Russians? I would hope so, lol. The KHL is the league that has violated an existing contract; the NHL has not.

Of course it has. Ufa offered to reciprocate the terms of the agreement, ie: pay 200K, and the NHL refused. The simple fact that the "agreement" is not reciprocal makes it shady.

That's why the memorandum of understanding is a foundation to something better. The NHL is prepared to negotiate in good faith, but the KHL will have none of it.

The NHL has never respected European contracts, to the contrary they have taught the players that it's ok to disregard them, that's the whole point of the "agreement".

Can you give explicit examples of where this has happened? Don't throw that out there if you can't support it. Links, please.

Ufa does not want to pay confiscatory fees either so they offered 200K. Sounds fair.

What determines "fair"? What the KHL or Ufa insists is "fair"? There's a reason why the NHL wants to sit down and negotiate. But that's the last thing the KHL wants.

You seriously have the nerve to demand "reciprocity" when that's exactly what the NHL has always opposed?

I think you misunderstand the word, "reciprocity". The NHL has historically paid money for player transfers. It's never reneged on any player transfer agreement it's signed with European federations. It's never violated an agreement with the KHL (to the best of my knowledge), but the KHL has done precisely this. The KHL wants to break the rules when it sees fit to do them; it's how business is done in Russia. The NHL wants something ironclad and will make concessions as long as its own interests as a private business entity are protected.

If the NHL was headquartered in Europe, a lot of the Euros who attack it would love it.

 

[Theokritos]

I don't think you actually understand my post. Or maybe you willfully chose to misread it.

Seems to be an affliction endemic to European posters.

If somebody from North America fails to understand one of my posts, I neither assume he did it willfully nor reflexively take a side blow against North American posters in general. Instead I try to explain what I meant and what the other seemed to misunderstand. Unfortunately you don't seem to have the same minimum courtesy.

 

[Theokritos]

It's never violated an agreement with the KHL (to the best of my knowledge), but the KHL has done precisely this.

When has the KHL violated an agreement with the NHL? I must have missed that.

 

[jekoh]

I think you misunderstand the word, "reciprocity".

No, you misunderstand the word.

A situation where the NHL can disregard existing contracts with non-NHL teams and sign the players anyway, while the non-NHL team is forbidden to sign a player with an NHL contract, is not reciprocal.

Reciprocity would be for the agreement to allow, say, Ufa, to sign a player disirregardless of whether or not he's signed with, say, Nashville already, provided Ufa pay the 200K.

This is exactly what Ufa proposed and the NHL refused.

So you misunderstood the word "reciprocity", but that's ok, I'm there to teach you your own language.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Staggering. And deceitful. Let's deal with the NHL's deceit. We can use the KHL as a starting point.

The NHL worked out a transfer agreement with the KHL in 2008 in good faith even though it was aware of the risk that the KHL posed. It was, in short, prepared to work with the Russians as business partners - hardly the actions of an organization engaged in shady practices

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=243045

Despite the KHL violating an existing NHL contract (see the Radulov case), the NHL agreed in 2011 to a memorandum of understanding on player contracts. The NHL has always wanted a transfer agreement in place whereby their contracts will be respected by the Russians. As Bill Daly noted to the Canadian Press, "we respect their contracts and we expect them to respect ours"

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=371237


The NHL has never been opposed to hammering out the framework for a deal that richly rewards all parties. It expects to pay fair compensation on all player signings and transfers, but does not want to pay confiscatory fees.

Nothing underhanded about it.

The NHL has generously subsidized player development in Europe. It has paid European players millions more than they would make anywhere else and, unlike the KHL, those contracts are protected by rigorous first-world labor and contract laws. It has given them world-class medical care, logistical support, and support for their families. Unlike the KHL, we know where all the money is coming from and who is sending it. It follows accounting and transparency laws and regulations far in advance of what you'll find in Europe (psst, KHL). The NHL's only sin, really, is that it refuses to be sucked dry by federations (and by the IIHF) without some form of reciprocity.

The NHL is not a charity. It's a business. And it's a business that has given a great deal to European hockey while European hockey (save for its great on-ice talent) has given nothing to it.

The anti-NHL bias in your post is an anti-North American prejudice. It's not supported by evidence.

By the way, the EIHF has done next to nothing for hockey in Asia - and it has certainly not sacrificed European interests for the sake of assisting Asian hockey federations. You can't even give instances of what monies the EIHF has paid Asian hockey federations for player development. The monies involved, to the extent they exist, are insignificant. A fraction of the money the EIHF pumps into events and player development in Europe.

Aaand, checkmate.

 

[getwiththeprogram*]

Not everything that works against you is necessarily a product of ill will.



Strange sentence. Works the other way too: The NHL has given nothing to European hockey (save for some of its money).

Lol

Isn't that, in essence, supporting what I wrote earlier? I don't see the KHL giving money to North America. I don't see the IIHF giving money to North America. But I see the NHL giving money to Europe. In fact, I'd be totally unsurprised if the European Ice Hockey Federations make out better in transfer agreements than the CHL. I'm looking for the information right now, but I know the CHL receives a comparative pittance from the NHL for each player it develops. The Europeans have nothing to complain about. They are certainly not treated worse than the Canadian Hockey League. Unfortunately, there is a lot of prejudice towards all things North American in Europe (in the hockey context, that's certainly the case for Canada), so nothing the NHL gives will ever be enough. And no amount of professional good will shall stave off the cries that the NHL is dishonest and manipulative.

I think the psychological term for it is projection.

 

[getwiththeprogram*]

Aaand, checkmate.

Thank you for your kind support, Ohashi.

Greatly appreciated.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Yes from 1998 the IIHF gave a free entry to a far East team at the expense of a more deserving European team.

They also increased the teams from 12 to 16 at the same time, so European teams went from 10 to 13.

 

[jekoh]

They also increased the teams from 12 to 16 at the same time, so European teams went from 10 to 13.

European teams went from 10 to 13 instead of going from 10 to 14 so they did lose a spot to a less deserving Japan team.

 

[jekoh]

I don't see the KHL giving money to North America.

They did offer money to the NHL but the NHL refused.

But I see the NHL giving money to Europe.

Of course they do, they sign already contracted players, why in the world wouln't have to pay for it.

In fact, I'd be totally unsurprised if the European Ice Hockey Federations make out better in transfer agreements than the CHL.

Why would they not make out better in transfer agreements than
a mere junior league?

I'm looking for the information right now, but I know the CHL receives a comparative pittance from the NHL for each player it develops. The Europeans have nothing to complain about. They are certainly not treated worse than the Canadian Hockey League.

What a laughable reasoning. "I was able to steal from him, so you should let me steal from you aswell, otherwise it's unfair".

 

[stv11]

Please stay on topic, this is a thread about the IIHF rankings.

You can discuss transfert agreements on the business of hockey board.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

So my brother just finished representing Canada in the first ever Pan-Am ice hockey tournament (IIHF sanctioned, but we're talking Div. II level here) in Mexico yesterday, and they brought home the gold. Any chance this officially bumps Canada up to the #1 spot on the IIHF board? Triple gold so far, and the women are up next!

 

[Hardyvan123]

China at 38 will be the big riser soon, might even hit top 30 and I can give you a billion reasons why they will.

These rankings are a joke, no other way to put it.