KHL Expansion Part VIII

[Lackhalak]

sure...dream on...

you are right its probably a dream, but you cant deny that Europe's league structure is complete diarrhea and could be way better and more compelling

 

[Lackhalak]

Fair point but Kunlun should be put out of its misery at some point.

Of course as you stated it's a political project and will falter on probably.

My guess is once the Olympics in China is over Kunlun will soon follow. Nizhnekamsk, Podolsk, Cherepovets should be pushed to the VHL and probably Vladivostok as well

 

[Albatros]

Fair point but Kunlun should be put out of its misery at some point.

Of course as you stated it's a political project and will falter on probably.

I'm not sure if those political considerations will be enough to save Kunlun as China is not about to open its borders anytime soon. Condemned to play in Russia, that diplomatic value is as good as gone which probably expedites the liquidation of the team.

 

[SoundAndFury]

you are right its probably a dream, but you cant deny that Europe's league structure is complete diarrhea and could be way better and more compelling

It developed into what it is very organically. The "optimization" you are envisioning is an outsider's perspective which would almost definitely ruin European hockey.

 

[vorky]

It developed into what it is very organically. The "optimization" you are envisioning is an outsider's perspective which would almost definitely ruin European hockey.

The European club hockey has been ruined by the NHL Transfer Agreement for decades. Remember it!

 

[Lackhalak]

It developed into what it is very organically. The "optimization" you are envisioning is an outsider's perspective which would almost definitely ruin European hockey.

You say ruin, I say it would be way better. It would also be hard to ruin something that already sucks

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

You say ruin, I say it would be way better. It would also be hard to ruin something that already sucks

You say sucks, others say financially sustainable. European leagues haven't lost more than 10 teams in 10 years. KHL has. They also aren't political/social projects like just about every KHL team.

So you say better. But not the vast majority of European hockey fans. We and they would rather be independent of the financial ruin and political nature of the KHL.
Hence why Lev Poprad failed. And Lev Praha. And Medvescak. And Slovan. And why Jokerit is the third most financially stable KHL team and still has lost at least 10 million each season since they joined the KHL.

 

[Jussi]

You say ruin, I say it would be way better. It would also be hard to ruin something that already sucks

That's your opinion and one that isn't shared by an overwhelming majority. It shows complete ignorance to how players are developed in several European countries (ie. parents are paying for the majority of development, not clubs) and the league/club structure.

 

[SoundAndFury]

You say ruin, I say it would be way better. It would also be hard to ruin something that already sucks

You sound like a 15-year-old kid who uses "edginess" to mask his ignorance.

The European club hockey has been ruined by the NHL Transfer Agreement for decades. Remember it!

It isn't "ruined" by it and you know it. Just because you wish to limit player's choices by automatically making them somebody's property doesn't mean everyone thinks so. Furthermore, we have been through this countless times so how about sticking to the topic instead of using it as an opportunity to blow your horn yet another time.

 

[vorky]

I would like to see all Swedish, Finnish etc clubs being such a financial magic if having the budget at the KHL level. Now, they do not even reach the KHL average.

Our friend should stop spreading his mantra. He is not saying the truth if claiming the KHL has ever confirmed that every club joining will keep playing the league forever. It is a normal process when clubs are coming & leaving. The KHL level has made a huge progress over history, some clubs can not adapt to the higher conditions.

 

[SoundAndFury]

some clubs can not adapt to the higher conditions.

If by "some" you mean all then yes.

Also being funded by Gazprom isn't magic.

 

[vorky]

If by "some" you mean all then yes.

Also being funded by Gazprom isn't magic.

Give me at least a few examples from European club hockey when the company of Gazprom size (by revenues) is sponsoring the European clubs at the level Gazprom is doing it. Honestly, I would like to see them. If you are able to write such a list, I could say there is something in your words. But if you are not able doing it, we should ask - why? And here is the problem @Lackhalak is talking about.

E: I want to make it easier for you, so I googled for Gazprom revenues. It should be around $87 billion. I can not wait for your list.

 

[Jussi]

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

I would like to see all Swedish, Finnish etc clubs being such a financial magic if having the budget at the KHL level. Now, they do not even reach the KHL average.

Our friend should stop spreading his mantra. He is not saying the truth if claiming the KHL has ever confirmed that every club joining will keep playing the league forever. It is a normal process when clubs are coming & leaving. The KHL level has made a huge progress over history, some clubs can not adapt to the higher conditions.

By progress, I think you mean relying more and more on Gazprom. Gazprom decide to stop paying bill? Financial instability and teams fold. That doesn't happen in any other league. Swedish or Finnish team don't fold when they lose one sponsor. They spend responsibly.

 

[Albatros]

Swedish or Finnish team don't fold when they lose one sponsor. They spend responsibly.

That's been debatable now during the pandemic though, especially in Finland many teams have willfully relied on the government to bail them out. For example TPS generated a total revenue of 4.8 million and losses of 2.6 million euros last season.

 

[Jussi]

That's been debatable now during the pandemic though, especially in Finland many teams have willfully relied on the government to bail them out. For example TPS generated a total revenue of 4.8 million and losses of 2.6 million euros last season.

They relied on their Supercell owners. Finnish government didn't give huge support to Liiga clubs.

 

[Albatros]

They relied on their Supercell owners. Finnish government didn't give huge support to Liiga clubs.

Instead of reducing their costs to match the reduced income many Liiga clubs continued to sign players that they couldn't afford, yet cried in the media how they need the government to step in.

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

That's been debatable now during the pandemic though, especially in Finland many teams have willfully relied on the government to bail them out. For example TPS generated a total revenue of 4.8 million and losses of 2.6 million euros last season.

That is nitpicking to the extreme. Until the worldwide pandemic hit, they spent responsibly.

 

[Albatros]

That is nitpicking to the extreme. Until the worldwide pandemic hit, they spent responsibly.

And after it hit, they did very little to adapt. Besides in a lot of places without "Supercell owners" the problems started much earlier, if you look at JYP they've been mismanaged for years already and the shit has been waiting to hit the fan.

 

[Rigafan]

You say sucks, others say financially sustainable. European leagues haven't lost more than 10 teams in 10 years.

I still don't think its fair to bring up the amount of teams that have come and gone from the KHL, not yet anyway. The league is brand new, in the grand scheme of ice hockey. Formed in 2008! So 9/10 teams have come and gone? It's just part of the process. Look at the UK EIHL. Formed 2003 and 7 teams have come and gone and more will as it sorts itself out. How many came and went from the NHL in the early years? Its easy to compare how stable X league is vs KHL when X league has 100 years of history behind it.

I do understand the issue with stability in relying on Gazprom or whatever company to keep the bills being paid, though this is pretty much how it's always been in Russian sports so it is unlikely to change anytime soon.

If the league is still with us in 15/20 years and we are having the same discussion then it sure has a problem with the revolving door of teams.

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

I still don't think its fair to bring up the amount of teams that have come and gone from the KHL, not yet anyway. The league is brand new, in the grand scheme of ice hockey. Formed in 2008! So 9/10 teams have come and gone? It's just part of the process. Look at the UK EIHL. Formed 2003 and 7 teams have come and gone and more will as it sorts itself out. How many came and went from the NHL in the early years? Its easy to compare how stable X league is vs KHL when X league has 100 years of history behind it.

I do understand the issue with stability in relying on Gazprom or whatever company to keep the bills being paid, though this is pretty much how it's always been in Russian sports so it is unlikely to change anytime soon.

If the league is still with us in 15/20 years and we are having the same discussion then it sure has a problem with the revolving door of teams.

The UK EIHL is barely professional, the compensation for most players is free academic tuition. Losing 9/10 is part of the process for poorly run leagues. If you're saying it happens normally and then bring up the EIHL, you need to reconsider your position.

The NHL has seen 9/10 team changes in the last 70-80 years with only 1 in the last 25 years.

It is more than fair when they only existed because of one oligarch or state-operated company paying all the bills. It is also more than fair when it is clear from the start that the team won't last long.

 

[vorky]

I still don't think its fair to bring up the amount of teams that have come and gone from the KHL, not yet anyway. The league is brand new, in the grand scheme of ice hockey. Formed in 2008! So 9/10 teams have come and gone? It's just part of the process. Look at the UK EIHL. Formed 2003 and 7 teams have come and gone and more will as it sorts itself out. How many came and went from the NHL in the early years? Its easy to compare how stable X league is vs KHL when X league has 100 years of history behind it.

I do understand the issue with stability in relying on Gazprom or whatever company to keep the bills being paid, though this is pretty much how it's always been in Russian sports so it is unlikely to change anytime soon.

If the league is still with us in 15/20 years and we are having the same discussion then it sure has a problem with the revolving door of teams.

Good points.

It is unfair manipulation when someone just says how many clubs come & leave the KHL without explanation of the context. So, the KHL started in 2008 as a huge compromise between Medvedev´s group & the Russian hockey federation who did not want to lose a power. So, as a result of the compromise, all RSL clubs joined the newly created KHL. Including those clubs who should never play at KHL level. Them leaving is a natural process. Btw, just a few days ago Morozov was asked if Yugra may come back. His answer was clear - no, they do not have enough money to even reach the KHL salary floor. Conclusion - all Russian clubs leaving the KHL is a direct result of the compromise made in 2008. It all has made the league much stronger.

Lev Poprad just relocated to Prague. You can not count it as two separated clubs. Btw, I have checked & there has been at least 5 relocations in the NHL since 1990. And who knows how many owner changes .... Lev Prague should be substituted by Sparta. We can thank to Bříza for no-deal. Again, it has nothing to do with financing. They would need enough money for Sparta.

Slovan is the same case. If the former owner sold the club in time, Slovan would keep playing the KHL. They will have a hard time to come back now, even if they try a lot.

You can not count Donbas as a league´s fault or something. There was one reason for them leaving, we all are aware of the backround.

People claiming the KHL is unstable are still living in some 2010-2014 year instead of 2021. The KHL is now much stronger & stable than ever.

I asked it earlier ... why do not the corporations of Gazprom size want to finance the hockey clubs in Sweden, Finland, Czech Rep, even Germany or Switzerland? We should ask this, not blaming Russians for securing huge amount of money for hockey clubs.

 

[TheWhiskeyThief]

You say sucks, others say financially sustainable. European leagues haven't lost more than 10 teams in 10 years. KHL has. They also aren't political/social projects like just about every KHL team.

So you say better. But not the vast majority of European hockey fans. We and they would rather be independent of the financial ruin and political nature of the KHL.
Hence why Lev Poprad failed. And Lev Praha. And Medvescak. And Slovan. And why Jokerit is the third most financially stable KHL team and still has lost at least 10 million each season since they joined the KHL.

It’s literally the travel budgets that kill KHL profitability.

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

It’s literally the travel budgets that kill KHL profitability.

Until you have a breakdown of a KHL team's budget, I highly doubt travel is the line between making and losing money in the league.

Lev Poprad just relocated to Prague. You can not count it as two separated clubs. Btw, I have checked & there has been at least 5 relocations in the NHL since 1990. And who knows how many owner changes .... Lev Prague should be substituted by Sparta. We can thank to Bříza for no-deal. Again, it has nothing to do with financing. They would need enough money for Sparta.

Poprad did not relocate to Prague. Lev Poprad ceased operations. The Czech Ice Hockey Association had to give permission for an entirely different team to start in the country. Entirely different franchise.

I asked it earlier ... why do not the corporations of Gazprom size want to finance the hockey clubs in Sweden, Finland, Czech Rep, even Germany or Switzerland? We should ask this, not blaming Russians for securing huge amount of money for hockey clubs.

Why don't Gazprom sized companies want to finance hockey clubs in the rest of Europe? Because financially responsible and sustainably spending is practiced in the rest of Europe.

 

[Albatros]

Poprad did not relocate to Prague. Lev Poprad ceased operations. The Czech Ice Hockey Association had to give permission for an entirely different team to start in the country. Entirely different franchise.

They weren't meant to play in Poprad to start with though, their eventual time there was not really a failure in the same sense as some other projects might have been. Lev Praha came to be as technically separate, but the team was always meant to play in a major Czech city.