Terrible world cup ideas

[BayStreetBully]

If it works, why in the blue blazes would the NHL want to go anything for the GD IOC? The league provides 90% of the talent, 100% of the upper end talent and for this they have to interrupt their season to accommodate the 5 tings, and for this opportunity, the owners and the players assume ALL the risk, get precisely zero of the reward ( Olympic participation has NEVER helped the nhl and FCS the NHL can't even use clips of players under contract AT the olympics to even try to tie into the fair weather nationalistic fans).

And if it doesn't turn into a WMC level dumpster fire, the next iteration with qualifying will replace the IOC who can then find out the draw of the talent they deserve based on how much they pay them.

If the nhl can use its players to run a tournament themselves, what the hell do they need the Iihf/ioc for?

If you didn't recognize the last question as rhetorical,I'll answer it for you: nothing.

You just spent the last few days adamant that the World Cup is not an international tourney, and that it was never designed to be that way. So the Olympics is the only international best on best tournament that the players care about.

 

[Canuckistani]

If it works, why in the blue blazes would the NHL want to go anything for the GD IOC?

Perhaps to give the fans and players what they all want.

The fans love the Olympic participation. The players love it. The only ones who don't love it are the owners who have no regard for the game itself.

If the nhl can use its players to run a tournament themselves, what the hell do they need the Iihf/ioc for?

Given what the morons at the NHL have done to the world cup, they clearly need the IIHF/IOC simply for legitimacy. As flawed as the IIHF is, they at least have some ability to throw together an actual international tournament without turning it into a WWE-tyle trainwreck.

 

[Canuckistani]

You just spent the last few days adamant that the World Cup is not an international tourney, and that it was never designed to be that way.

In other words he's OK with replacing an actual best-on-best international event with an gimicky NHL cash-grab. That's exactly the kind of fan the NHL is banking on with this thing.

 

[Gaps]

What's really troubling is that the IIHF and European hockey federations have signed off on this monstrosity.

Hopefully there's a subtle agreement being made that in exchange for their co-operation on this NHL cash-grab, the NHL will then agree to take part in the 2018 Olympics. If that's the case then this stupid event bothers me a good deal less than it otherwise would. It can then function as a sort pf try-out camp for the real thing, sort of like the WHC only less meaningful.

The reason the IIHF is allowing this to happen is apparently in the new transfer agreement. The gist of it is that there is a clause that says the IIHF is required to co-operate with the NHL in regards to the World Cup. Most likely that agreement wouldn't have been signed if the IIHF brass had known at the time that Bettman & Co. we're planning on ruining international best-on-best hockey.

As for the Olympics... Sounds like nothing has been agreed on and the national federations here haven't given up on it, but I believe Fasel admitted last month that it is going to be difficult to get the NHL to agree to go to Korea. As far as the NHL is concerned, this joke of a World Cup replaces the Olympics.

 

[sandysan]

Perhaps to give the fans and players what they all want.

The fans love the Olympic participation. The players love it. The only ones who don't love it are the owners who have no regard for the game itself.



Given what the morons at the NHL have done to the world cup, they clearly need the IIHF/IOC simply for legitimacy. As flawed as the IIHF is, they at least have some ability to throw together an actual international tournament without turning it into a WWE-tyle trainwreck.

Like the best of the rest tourney that is held coincidentally, during the NHL playoffs? With those less than AHL level refs?

You get to choose, a nationalistic tourney with chaff, or a best on best or largely best on best tpurney.

And putting legitimacy and the IOC in the same sentence is laughable. And if the players are under contract, their participation requires the.owners consent. IF player participation helped the league they get to decide. But it doesn't, it hasn't and playing in god knows where next time won't happen.

The olympics are already.almost exclusively decided on nhl talent. Whether the tournament is under the rings or shield doesn't change the fact that the talent IS NHL based.

The IOC can fix all of this by cutting the players in, but they won't. Their entire model is to showcase world class talent, provided that they only do it for free.

And if the IOC wants to keep up with the " you take the risks, we take the rewards" then they can use never were's and has been a and players not under contract or players willing to breach. You think nbc pays big money for a bunch of nobodies and never were's that would get killed by any NHL team? Good luck with that.

 

[sandysan]

In other words he's OK with replacing an actual best-on-best international event with an gimicky NHL cash-grab. That's exactly the kind of fan the NHL is banking on with this thing.

You want best on best you have to make concessions to the league that the talent is contracted to. The players don't work for their federations, they work for the nhl. The nhl is a private company, if it doesn't make sense to them financially, they shouldn't do it no matter how much you want to see best on best FOR FREE.

 

[Jussi]

Like the best of the rest tourney that is held coincidentally, during the NHL playoffs? With those less than AHL level refs?

You get to choose, a nationalistic tourney with chaff, or a best on best or largely best on best tpurney.

And putting legitimacy and the IOC in the same sentence is laughable. And if the players are under contract, their participation requires the.owners consent. IF player participation helped the league they get to decide. But it doesn't, it hasn't and playing in god knows where next time won't happen.

The olympics are already.almost exclusively decided on nhl talent. Whether the tournament is under the rings or shield doesn't change the fact that the talent IS NHL based.

The IOC can fix all of this by cutting the players in, but they won't. Their entire model is to showcase world class talent, provided that they only do it for free.

And if the IOC wants to keep up with the " you take the risks, we take the rewards" then they can use never were's and has been a and players not under contract or players willing to breach. You think nbc pays big money for a bunch of nobodies and never were's that would get killed by any NHL team? Good luck with that.

No other athlete gets paid either by the IOC directly, they get their money from sponsors and national Olympic committees, depending on their success. That's why it it has never been an issue.

 

[sandysan]

The Olympics are not a cash grab, as the most results are +-0 or losing money on it.

And it won't have 100% NHL-players. With what should Russia, Czech Republic and Finland otherwise fill out their rosters?

The olympics are not a cash grab? Where foes the television right money go? Nbc universal paid 7.75 billion to broadcast 6 games. That's over a billion dollars per olympics, where does that money go prey tell?

You are right it won't have 100% nhl participation, let's say 95% and 97-98% of the teams with a chance of winning.

That 2-5% is huge. And if the countries with poor depth who have to fill the roster with warm bodies and over the hollers, I'm sure taking the top end talent from multiple countries is gonna decrease the team talent because they don't all have the same type of passports.

The teams that had lower numbers of non nhl players did poorly against the teams that had most if not all NHL players.

The difference in top end talent between the world cup and is miniscule, team leftover WILL have more talent than team 4 nhl ers and filler from 3 rate leagues. Team young guns is hard to measure. But both >>>>>>>>>> the world shampionships. No one cares about the world shampionships, and if they do its because of nhl participation. You remove the nhl players, you have pure international competition that is sanctioned by the iihf that would look like a beer league comparatively. Without nhl ers the shampionships have less appeal than the spengler cup.

Look at the WJHC, why do people, Canadians specifically love this tourney ? Is it world class hockey? No. But it's a level field to look at the best players under a certain age. And to use this as a metric of development.

Because of depth Canada has players who won't get an opportunity to play in these tourneys for quite some time. Put en on team young guns and you get another glimpse at what these players might turn jnto.

If you don't want to watch, dont
But all this nonsense of decrying the world cup for something it's not as the reason seems silly.

 

[sandysan]

No other athlete gets paid either by the IOC directly, they get their money from sponsors and national Olympic committees, depending on their success. That's why it it has never been an issue.

You are right, if the olympics wants to not pay the talent ( you know like the ncaa) they get the talent they pay for.

Who are the players ( and their employers) to look at the BILLIONS the IOC makes off the backs of the players and ask for a piece of the pie? And people call the NHL greedy? Seriously?

 

[JackSlater]

You are right, if the olympics wants to not pay the talent ( you know like the ncaa) they get the talent they pay for.

Who are the players ( and their employers) to look at the BILLIONS the IOC makes off the backs of the players and ask for a piece of the pie? And people call the NHL greedy? Seriously?

So you're making this a players issue, even though the players (NHL and otherwise) are on record as wanting to play in the Olympics? OK.

 

[sandysan]

So you're making this a players issue, even though the players (NHL and otherwise) are on record as wanting to play in the Olympics? OK.

The players are contractually obligated to their employers. They can want it all they want, if they are NOT released they have but two choices, lump it or breach.

This could ALL be resolved if the IOC went with something other than reaping all the rewards whole the players and owners ( tavares) assume ALL the risk. Do what's right and send some cash to the people who are the predominant draw. But that will never happen do long as you have apologists calling the players and owners "greedy" for having the temerity to ask that their cut be something other than bubkis.

 

[BayStreetBully]

The players are contractually obligated to their employers. They can want it all they want, if they are NOT released they have but two choices, lump it or breach.

This could ALL be resolved if the IOC went with something other than reaping all the rewards whole the players and owners ( tavares) assume ALL the risk. Do what's right and send some cash to the people who are the predominant draw. But that will never happen do long as you have apologists calling the players and owners "greedy" for having the temerity to ask that their cut be something other than bubkis.

You're so concerned with what compensation the NHL owners get that you're willing to throw away an Olympic tournament where the players will play for glory, and replace it with a World Cup tournament where the players will play because they are contractually obliged to. Unless you are an owner, I don't see what this has to do with you, when you can just sit back and enjoy an Olympic best on best that the players would actually care about.

 

[Jussi]

It seems this tournament will be on pay tv in Finland. A poster at jatkoaika.com had done a 24h google search on the subject and one result stated that the tournament would be on Viasat but clicking the tweet didn't produce any result. Assuming it was premature, they are pretty much the only option as the national broadcasting company YLE and the commercial money run MTV3 and Nelonen don't have any extra money lying around. Considering Viasat aren't in a lot of households, that will limit the visibility of the tournament a lot.

 

[JackSlater]

The players are contractually obligated to their employers. They can want it all they want, if they are NOT released they have but two choices, lump it or breach.

This could ALL be resolved if the IOC went with something other than reaping all the rewards whole the players and owners ( tavares) assume ALL the risk. Do what's right and send some cash to the people who are the predominant draw. But that will never happen do long as you have apologists calling the players and owners "greedy" for having the temerity to ask that their cut be something other than bubkis.

Yes the NHL wants that (and I don't think they are particularly wrong to) but the players want to play regardless of whether they receive money or not. To frame it otherwise is obviously inaccurate.

 

[ForumNamePending]

The players are contractually obligated to their employers. They can want it all they want, if they are NOT released they have but two choices, lump it or breach.

This could ALL be resolved if the IOC went with something other than reaping all the rewards whole the players and owners ( tavares) assume ALL the risk. Do what's right and send some cash to the people who are the predominant draw. But that will never happen do long as you have apologists calling the players and owners "greedy" for having the temerity to ask that their cut be something other than bubkis.

Do we know if the "people who are the predominant draw", AKA the players (no one is tuning in with the hopes of seeing Jeremy Jacobs, Ed Snider or the Exec. Board of MLSE play hockey), care if they are financial compensated? It would appear, at least through the first 5 tournaments, as long as things like the playing/practice facilities, accommodations and security is up to standard the players want to be involved whether they reap some kind of financial reward or not. We all know the owners don't like being involved in the Olympics, most of us also see that their position is completely understandable, but let's not pretend it has been BOTH the owners AND the players that have been resistant to Olympic participation.

 

[sandysan]

Yes the NHL wants that (and I don't think they are particularly wrong to) but the players want to play regardless of whether they receive money or not. To frame it otherwise is obviously inaccurate.

When the players sign their contracts unless their is a clause in it allowing them to leave the team to play elsewhere, what the players want is moot. They NEED the owners consent.

The IOC has brainwashed all kinds of people into believing that 5 rings somehow magically means legitimacy. It's nonsense. Playing best on best is really what people want to see. Look at when the IOC actively prevented nhl players from competing. That had all of the legitimacy that many clamor for. It was demonstrably improved by the.inclusion of NHL pros.

If, as many claim to want, best on best is the apex, then whether it's run by the ioc or the shield makes no difference. What matters is the talent. Not the uber nationalistic be of " my country is better than yours". The talent. And for the first world cup, the overall talent will exceed that seen in sochi.

And if you don't think that the IOC will pony up, if you want real best on best tell the iihf to delay the shampionships to the summer do that ALL of the high end talent has the opportunity to represent their countries. You think it's just a coincidence that the shampionships run concurrently with the SC playoffs?

The NHL has the leverage, they have the draw under contract. Again what does the IOC bring to the table that the NHL can't do for themselves? They can play the game under their rules, on small ice, with the ability to tie into the regular season and have carter Blanche to use whatever hell clip they like. Oh and they also don't have to see ALL of the profits generated by the talent go to some exploiting corrupt organization for doing the super hard job of hanging a few 5 ringed flags around an arena.

 

[sandysan]

Do we know if the "people who are the predominant draw", AKA the players (no one is tuning in with the hopes of seeing Jeremy Jacobs, Ed Snider or the Exec. Board of MLSE play hockey), care if they are financial compensated? It would appear, at least through the first 5 tournaments, as long as things like the playing/practice facilities, accommodations and security is up to standard the players want to be involved whether they reap some kind of financial reward or not. We all know the owners don't like being involved in the Olympics, most of us also see that their position is completely understandable, but let's not pretend it has been BOTH the owners AND the players that have been resistant to Olympic participation.

The players are UNDER contract, and if an owner releases a player ( i.e tavares) who, hid forbid, gets injured on ice and can't contribute to the job HE'S PAID to do, the owners should just say, "oh well, chalk it up to bad luck?"

The nhl has the juice because they have the talent under contract. If an owner wants to release his player that is his choice. If he doesn't that is dmso his choice. If he decides the upside is not worth the liability ( easy to imagine as Olympic participation has never helped the NHL) then he can say "no" and is absolutely justified in going so

 

[Jablkon]

The players are UNDER contract, and if an owner releases a player ( i.e tavares) who, hid forbid, gets injured on ice and can't contribute to the job HE'S PAID to do, the owners should just say, "oh well, chalk it up to bad luck?"

The nhl has the juice because they have the talent under contract. If an owner wants to release his player that is his choice. If he doesn't that is dmso his choice. If he decides the upside is not worth the liability ( easy to imagine as Olympic participation has never helped the NHL) then he can say "no" and is absolutely justified in going so

Thanks for that new info isn't it same in every league? Oh, sorry you obviously read all that contracts)Anyway I am already looking forward to watch next tourney of so many injured guys or shall I call it beertourney ot Sampion sips?) I am already curious about performance of teams full of average Nhlers. As I am prefering beer I hope I will be ok with it

 

[sandysan]

Thanks for that new info isn't it same in every league? Oh, sorry you obviously read all that contracts)Anyway I am already looking forward to watch next tourney of so many injured guys or shall I call it beertourney ot Sampion sips?) I am already curious about performance of teams full of average Nhlers. As I am prefering beer I hope I will be ok with it

Same in every league, sure. But the financial ramifications of failing to make the playoffs in some third rate league are not do dire, are they.

The nhl owners pay their employees handsomely for success in the nhl, not the olympics. If a player wanted to negotiate the ability to play in the olympics, I presume they could.

The question is, how many have? And if the league dies not shut down, the only ones going are those not under contract or those willing to breach.

Methinks that the owners are far more incentivised to do so when they end up getting some of the revenue the tourney generates.

 

[roto]

sandysan: For athletes Olympics is pure sport: no money, represent your country, winners get gold medals, live in Olympics with other athletes etc. It's about sport and not about money. You make it look like Olympics is about money, but money is just something that's needed in arranging Olympics. Ice hockey is just one sport in Olympics, and most viewers around the world don't care about ice hockey and having NHL players there is completely irrelevant for most viewers. IOC wants to have NHL players in Olympics, but doesn't need them.

NHL players have contracts with NHL, but it doesn't mean that NHL owns them. NHL can still prevent them from participating Olympics by not having an Olympic break. Then players can decide when making contracts if they want to go to Olympics or play in NHL. Playing without compensation is not a problem for players, we can see it in WHC and in other international tournaments (also in other sports).

You've been claiming endlessly that IOC grabs the money for talent of NHL. That's very inaccurate. Players don't use NHL's talent in tournaments, but they use their own talent. Please point me the chapter in CBA where it is stated that player's talent is owned by NHL, and NHL needs to be compensated if player use their talent outside NHL.

Bettman is good at making money, we can all agree on that. World Cup is about maximizing revenue, that's why there are those non-national teams. It's the way to expose maximum amount of NHL players - it's kind of NHL all-stars event disguised in international tournament. It's purely about making money and players get their share, and I guess they might even be obliged to participate because it's their job to generate revenue. Players are expected to participate even in totally meaningless all-stars weekend.

It'd actually be nice if NHL arranged a tournament different from WHC or Olympics. There could be just top-6 teams playing against each other. NHL could do it, but unfortunately their priorities are not in sport but in how to make as much money as possible.

 

[roto]

Same in every league, sure. But the financial ramifications of failing to make the playoffs in some third rate league are not do dire, are they.

This pretty much points out how you can't think outside your little NHL box. In NHL every team is safe, they're guaranteed to play in NHL next year. Actually the GMs may even use all means possible to make the team lose to be the very worst team in league. Being the worst in NHL was this year probably more useful than making playoffs. NHL is built to be a sandbox where even losers win.

In many/most pro leagues teams get relegated if they're not good enough. Getting relegated can easily be a financial disaster if a key player gets hurt in an international tournament. It doesn't matter if the financial figures in NHL have more zeros, because the impacts can be far more drastic especially in open leagues. A $300k loss can be a death blow for some team, because most leagues, unlike NHL, operate by free market rules and do not try to equalize the competition. Only strongest and best survive.

Fans in Europe know how qualification games regarding promotion/relegation can be more intense, desperate and interesting than league championship finals.

 

[JackSlater]

When the players sign their contracts unless their is a clause in it allowing them to leave the team to play elsewhere, what the players want is moot. They NEED the owners consent.

Yes, I know. My post was in reference to yours, when you talked about the IOC needing to pay the players, ignoring the fact that they aren't looking to get paid. You're talking in circles.

The IOC has brainwashed all kinds of people into believing that 5 rings somehow magically means legitimacy. It's nonsense. Playing best on best is really what people want to see. Look at when the IOC actively prevented nhl players from competing. That had all of the legitimacy that many clamor for. It was demonstrably improved by the.inclusion of NHL pros.

You keep talking about this, but no one here is claiming what you keep complaining about. The IOC is nearly as bad as Fifa. That doesn't make what the NHL is doing any less idiotic.

If, as many claim to want, best on best is the apex, then whether it's run by the ioc or the shield makes no difference. What matters is the talent. Not the uber nationalistic be of " my country is better than yours". The talent. And for the first world cup, the overall talent will exceed that seen in sochi.

Best what? Best on best implies the best players from one country against the best from another. If a person just wants to see the best players in the world against each other, they can tune into the many months of NHL hockey.

And if you don't think that the IOC will pony up, if you want real best on best tell the iihf to delay the shampionships to the summer do that ALL of the high end talent has the opportunity to represent their countries. You think it's just a coincidence that the shampionships run concurrently with the SC playoffs?

I agree that it's idiotic for the IIHF to schedule its tournament during the playoffs of by far the best league in the sport, but the damage is long done. European leagues end too early to accommodate the NHL schedule, and there isn't a great demand for the tournament in North America anyway (which is completely the fault of the IIHF). The stupidity of the IIHF, just like the crookedness of the IOC, does nothing to mitigate how stupidly the NHL is organizing this tournament.

The NHL has the leverage, they have the draw under contract. Again what does the IOC bring to the table that the NHL can't do for themselves? They can play the game under their rules, on small ice, with the ability to tie into the regular season and have carter Blanche to use whatever hell clip they like. Oh and they also don't have to see ALL of the profits generated by the talent go to some exploiting corrupt organization for doing the super hard job of hanging a few 5 ringed flags around an arena.

I agree that the IOC brings basically nothing. I don't buy the claims that Olympic hockey does much to "grow" hockey. The IOC (along with the IIHF) has shown though, since 1998, that it knows how to put on an actual international tournament. The NHL has seemingly forgotten how to do so.

 

[ForumNamePending]

The players are UNDER contract, and if an owner releases a player ( i.e tavares) who, hid forbid, gets injured on ice and can't contribute to the job HE'S PAID to do, the owners should just say, "oh well, chalk it up to bad luck?"

The nhl has the juice because they have the talent under contract. If an owner wants to release his player that is his choice. If he doesn't that is dmso his choice. If he decides the upside is not worth the liability ( easy to imagine as Olympic participation has never helped the NHL) then he can say "no" and is absolutely justified in going so

That's all understood and falls under "We all know the owners don't like being involved in the Olympics, most of us also see that their position is completely understandable"... You originally framed your argument by stating part of the problem is the players themselves aren't getting paid when up to this point that doesn't appear to have been a problem at all.

Owners not getting paid = Problem - We get this, some even agree
Players not getting paid = Apparently hasn't been a problem - You don't get this?

Earlier in the thread you claimed you had no allegiance to the IIHF, the IOC, the NHL, or even the teams involved... For you it's all about the players on the ice! So why are you against the players involvement in something they obviously care a lot about? For someone who has no allegiance a lot of your arguments seem to be about protecting the NHL owner's "assets'" and sticking it to everyone else.

 

[sandysan]

sandysan: For athletes Olympics is pure sport: no money, represent your country, winners get gold medals, live in Olympics with other athletes etc. It's about sport and not about money. You make it look like Olympics is about money, but money is just something that's needed in arranging Olympics. Ice hockey is just one sport in Olympics, and most viewers around the world don't care about ice hockey and having NHL players there is completely irrelevant for most viewers. IOC wants to have NHL players in Olympics, but doesn't need them.

NHL players have contracts with NHL, but it doesn't mean that NHL owns them. NHL can still prevent them from participating Olympics by not having an Olympic break. Then players can decide when making contracts if they want to go to Olympics or play in NHL. Playing without compensation is not a problem for players, we can see it in WHC and in other international tournaments (also in other sports).

You've been claiming endlessly that IOC grabs the money for talent of NHL. That's very inaccurate. Players don't use NHL's talent in tournaments, but they use their own talent. Please point me the chapter in CBA where it is stated that player's talent is owned by NHL, and NHL needs to be compensated if player use their talent outside NHL.

Bettman is good at making money, we can all agree on that. World Cup is about maximizing revenue, that's why there are those non-national teams. It's the way to expose maximum amount of NHL players - it's kind of NHL all-stars event disguised in international tournament. It's purely about making money and players get their share, and I guess they might even be obliged to participate because it's their job to generate revenue. Players are expected to participate even in totally meaningless all-stars weekend.

It'd actually be nice if NHL arranged a tournament different from WHC or Olympics. There could be just top-6 teams playing against each other. NHL could do it, but unfortunately their priorities are not in sport but in how to make as much money as possible.

And in my lifetime the olympics went from PURE amateurs to fill fledged pros ( for the better). Why do you think the IOC did this? It wouldn't happen to be because with nhl caliber players as opposed to WJHC or college kids that the TV contracts that find the IOC would be much, much, much smaller, would it?

And you are right the teams don't own the players but they own their rights. A player who choses to go to the olympics against his teams wishes has but one choice, breach his contract.

Thi ioc had fooled you into thinking it is the paragon of sport, those days are gone.long hone. They will do whatever they have to in order to simply.maximize their profits. They turn a blind eye to transparent naturalization and corruption.

I'm not for people making a buck but again if the olypic hockey is composed of the overwhelming number of NHL players, what does the IOC bring to the table? Seriously what?

I am sure that the nhl can find someone to hang banners and cash checks just fine.

 

[sandysan]

That's all understood and falls under "We all know the owners don't like being involved in the Olympics, most of us also see that their position is completely understandable"... You originally framed your argument by stating part of the problem is the players themselves aren't getting paid when up to this point that doesn't appear to have been a problem at all.

Owners not getting paid = Problem - We get this, some even agree
Players not getting paid = Apparently hasn't been a problem - You don't get this?

Earlier in the thread you claimed you had no allegiance to the IIHF, the IOC, the NHL, or even the teams involved... For you it's all about the players on the ice! So why are you against the players involvement in something they obviously care a lot about? For someone who has no allegiance a lot of your arguments seem to be about protecting the NHL owner's "assets'" and sticking it to everyone else.

Because in a competition between what players want and what they are contractually obligated to do, that's not much of a choice.

I'm sure that the grind of the season wears on players. I'm sure that sometime in the season they would like to do something else. But they are getting paid to honor their contracts, not just when they don't have something they might enjoy more.