I think everyone should get their fair share of the pie. The question is what is fair? I don't think the Swiss being there would generate much, if any extra revenue for the tournament, so how much do you pay them? The same per player as NHL stars who make $10 million per year?
Some details about the World Cup...
- Thread starter UsernameWasTaken
- Start date
- Status
I think everyone should get their fair share of the pie. The question is what is fair? I don't think the Swiss being there would generate much, if any extra revenue for the tournament, so how much do you pay them? The same per player as NHL stars who make $10 million per year?
I'm sure they could work out some sort of formula based on the number of players there are from each league. Having said that the NHLPA would still get a higher percentage per player than the rest, since they have the stars that bring in the $$$, but I agree with the other leagues and players getting something.
FIFA won't be telling the big clubs what to do for very long.
Fact is the only reason fifa has any power is because the players want to play in the World Cup. In hockey the nhlpa is a major negotiating partner. They generally get what they want. Fifapro can eat it's heart out.
It seems odd that Eagleson and company would not have taken the time and effort to have made sure they took care of things "in the office" at the challenge cup and 1981 Canada Cup but made sure they took the trouble to rip the Soviets off in 1984 and 1987.
Odd behaviour to say the least, what could have been so special about the years 84 and 87 but not 79 and 81?
Surely they would have known after 72 that the margin between winning and losing was so small they had to rig things right?
Just doesn't make sense to this guy.
You'd think that 1981 would certainly have been rigged in Canada's favour (if Eagelson possessed such power) given the 6-0 embarrassment of 1979. Instead Canada was allowed to lose 8-1, a game that solidified the Soviets as the clear #1 team.
When Canada finally did get around to rigging events, it was decided that they would struggle though the opening round in 1984 before barely squeeking by the Soviets in OT, thanks to Paul Coffey breaking up a 2-on-1.
Then in 1987, Canada came within inches of getting swept in the final when a Vladimir Krutov backhand in OT was stopped in close by Grant Fuhr.
Pretty convincing stuff for a rigged event. They even paid Vikhtor Tikhonov to say that 1987 was the greatest hockey he'd ever seen. Makes you wonder just how deep this conspiracy goes.
VMBM
Hansel?!
Well, to be fair, I think the 1984 CC was the first one Canada 'REALLY couldn't afford to lose', because of the blowout losses in 1979 and especially in 1981. 1979 could be explained by (lack of) preparation, and maybe even 1981 by, I don't know, 'it was only one game', but 3rd time in a row, no way... I think there's a strong possibility that there wouldn't have been any future Canada Cups, at least for a while, had Canada lost the semifinal game in 1984.
Personally, I don't understand the whining about the 1984 CC; Canada was the better team in that semifinal game IMO, it's as simple as that, even though USSR was far better during the round-robin (thus they met already in the SF). However, I understand the criticism concerning the 1987 CC; the USSR vs. Canada RR game was a scandal, and I don't think penalties were always evenly called in the final(s) either.
Yeah, I am afraid of that too. Not sure right now if it is purely on NHL´s arms to select participating countries, if IIHF can have its word about countries too, you can have a guess which country would be dumped in favour of Germany, since the IIHF´s president is Fasel.
Jussi
Registered User
Here's the link to discussion about the revenue distribution when it was discussed in June: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=86080083&postcount=4
1981 was refereed by Dag Olsson of Sweden. After Olsson refereed the 1984 round robin game between Canada and the Soviets, Eagleson decreed that no more European refs would work medal round games in the Canada Cup. As Exec Director of the NHLPA, he owned and operated the Canada Cup, and had the right to make any changes that he wanted to improve Canada's competitive position. The Soviets had no right of rebuttal, and frankly, back then, they needed the money. Eagleson installed Mike Noeth of the United States to referee the semi-Final match between Canada and the Soviets (read about Noeth's ill-fated career by Googling him, and especially read the quote from Dan Kelly, late Canadian hockey broadcaster, in the '87 round-robin game between the two, "I'm cheering for Canada, but this is ridiculous"), and ended up winning 12 minutes into Overtime, 3-2. From then on, only Canadian and American refs worked Canada Cup medal round games.
You could make an argument that either team deserved to win, but the point is that the home team in the Canada/World Cup has the arbitrary right to change the competitive balance at its own whim, which makes many Europeans, especially Russians, dismiss the idea that it is a legitimate competition, regardless of what the money ****** at the IIHF might do.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 19,829
- 15,497
I believe that the Soviet national team of the late 1970s through to the late 1980s was better than Canada's best possible team. I would also say that Canada probably had more hockey talent at that time, mostly because of the hockey goals of each country. Canada just wanted to produce hockey players, and did that at a tremendous rate. USSR wanted to produce the strongest national team in the world, and they succeeded with probably the strongest team ever.
Yeah I guess you could that argument for Canada. Having far better players and far better tournament results certainly helps.
From what I've seen lately the KHL and Russian officials deserve credit for how they are viewing this tournament, at least to this point. If the situation was reversed I highly doubt the NHL would react as positively.
So not only is there no direct quote or source named but it actually says the players will get half the revenue, which implies all the players, not only the NHLers.
I do find it funny that you know so much and post so much about these tournaments that you claim to not care about.
Not true. Remember summer Olympics 1980 and 1984? The 1980 Moscow games were boycotted by USA and many other western countries. 1984 LA games were boycotted by the soviet-dominated East European countries.
[MOD]
Last edited by a moderator:
Jussi
Registered User
Wow, that's some selctive reading there.
You did notice this part? Why would they even bring it up if non-NHL players would get any money?
Wow, that's some selctive reading there.
Why would they even bring it up if non-NHL players would get any money?
The author was making the point that it didn't effect the salary cap, your comprehension of this article and situation is either very poor or just not honest. I know you are deathly afraid of anything outside the status quo and as such you find the resurgence of the WCup extremely threatening and you are trying to come up with any excuse as to why it may not happen, but once again your argument is shown to be baseless.
Last edited:
Jussi
Registered User
Man, your are just wrong on every account. And when you're wrong, you're wrong. And you, you're always wrong.
SanDogBrewin
Righteous bucks!
Correct and again the KHL along with the other leagues would laugh in Bettman's face if they didn't get a piece of the revenue pie.
PS. Well when they laughed it would be well over his head actually
habsrule4eva3089
Registered User
- Nov 22, 2008
- 4,278
- 1,084
Correct and again the KHL along with the other leagues would laugh in Bettman's face if they didn't get a piece of the revenue pie.
PS. Well when they laughed it would be well over his head actually
How much revenue should they and the NLA (Only 2 leagues pretty much who's players are required) expect if their league will only provide 20-25 players out of close to 200. . .I mean they should know they probably might be getting something but obviously won't be getting a lot.
That is the big question. It's hard to justify paying the same per player for guys from the NLA as it is for NHLers.
1Gold Standard
Registered User
- Jun 13, 2012
- 7,988
- 319
you mean shut down its league at the peak of a season to travel half way around the world to play in a tournament from which they derive no real economic benefit other than "grow the game" marketing opps? Ya the NHL would never be open to a scenario like that. Fact is, the World Cup is a sport/commercial enterprise, and as such it will be an interest to all parties if they see a benefit to their individual leagues and federations. And if this were an IIHF initiative and they gave the NHL enough economic incentives to be part of it, they would be expressing an interest, just like everybody else is doing for the World Cup... "what's in it for me?" and if the conditions were deemed insufficient, the the NHL would say, no thanks. Just as the KHL may say, if it deems the World Cup conditions as being not in their favor. But, what if, as part of the negotiations the KHL asked for and got games on a major N.American television network (TSN/SN)... would that brand exposure be worth shutting down the league and jumping on board with the World Cup. Something worth pursuing imo.
but regardless, I just may get my dream Canada-USA 8 game summit series after all. I'll gladly take those 8 games.
Last edited:
- Status
