View Single Post
08-31-2013, 04:58 PM
vorky's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,353
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by CoolForumNamePending View Post
Attendance is hardly irrelevant. Along with being a significant revenue stream for plenty of professional leagues around the world it is also a pretty good indicator of general interest in a team/league/sport.

I agreed that talking about results from pre-season/exhibition games is pretty pointless but that didn't stop you from using it to try to prove a point early in the thread.

But since you want to talk about things like 'politics/dimplomacy', 'economy' (which apparently paid attendance has nothing to do with) and 'sport' I will try to oblige.
If you want to talk about attendance and if you claim there is "no interest of fans", explain me this.

Total KHL attendance RS
08/09 - 2 986 934
09/10 - 3 528 188
10/11 - 3 400 273
11/12 - 3 276 394
12/13 - 3 921 832

Difference cca 1M within 5 yrs, not bad

And the NHL is more powerful than any Euro league, the ET or the KHL. The existance of the NHL within 'world hockey' hasn't prevented any of those entities from growing in recent years so I am not sure how the existance of the KHL means nothing else will be able to grow or thrive.
NHL´s main market is not Europe. ET is not threat for NHL. KHL can be a threat, but NHL does not have power to do something with it. Russians have money, so NHL can not do anymothing just to follow and cooperate. This is NOT my main argument, but you started with this point of view.

I said many times, there is a scenario that KHL is no.1 and ET no.2. Did you read my posts?? KHL has no problem with ET until ET wants to replace KHL as best league of Europe.

Do we know if Jokerit will be pulling out of the ET? I don't see many clubs jumping off of the ET bandwagon. Hasn't the number of teams entering it grown?
Why should Jokerit pull out of ET? Does not make sense.

Those involved in the KHL have poured millions (billions? ) into the sport. If I was Fasel I wouldn't be against the KHL expanding either. Did he also go on to say that he believes it is in the best interest of the sport if all leagues, clubs and national federations submit to the wishes of the KHL? If not I am not sure what your point is because as far as I know Fasel still wants to see a 'Champions League' type tournament. It is possible to want both competitions to thrive.
My point is that Fasel was "pro Champions League" and "anti-KHL" a few years back, but something changed... now he is "pro-KHL", supports KHL´s expansion.

I am not aware of Fasel´s speech of "it is in the best interest of the sport ..." but I am aware of following speech of Kummola, vicepresident of IIHF

“Jokerit’s move from the Finnish SM-liiga to the KHL is a part of international development of hockey. The Finnish association has no reason to be against it,” said the association’s chairman Kalervo Kummola, who is also an IIHF Vice President and a former owner of Jokerit.

If he were against KHL, he would say something like "KHL is bad move for Jokerit and finnish, interantional hockey".

And with those companies on board how much closer is the KHL to being a break even enterprise? At this point the KHL 'economy' is built around finding someone/thing willing to sink millions into a club. I don't think in most cases a club that jumps to the KHL is going to see a significant (any?) increase in gate revenue, sponsorship and TV rights. Basically a Swedish, German, Swiss, etc club can have a budget of $10 million/year, continue to lose their best players to the NHL or wealthy KHL clubs, but contend for a championship every year in their domestic league or spend $10 million/year, continue to lose their best players to the NHL or wealthy KHL clubs and be midpack or worse in the KHL every year.
KHL as enterprise has profit. If you want to talk about clubs, lets start with Phoenix or football clubs.

Huh? GM isn't sponsoring the KHL in hopes of increasing Chevy sales in Sweden. That's like saying someone in Brazil who buys a Honda is supporting the NHL.
Irrelevant. I have a feeling, you did not get idea.

This was your 'sport' point? Sounds like this should be under economy. The SM-Liiga really isn't that much more of a feeder to the KHL than Dinamo Riga is. At the risk of repeating myself if a club outside of the KHL can't afford to financially compete with SKA, Ak Bars, Omsk, CSKA, Ufa, etc moving to the KHL isn't going to fix the issue on its own. Unless the club can find a way to double, triple, quadruple their budget, they are still going to be losing their best players.
It was not only sport point. We can talk about growing hockey in non-hockey regions etc. We can talk about more money involved in hockey as sport (and compare it to ET), supporting junior hockey. It is endless.

SML would be better league if no player moved to KHL this off season. Unfortunatelly for SML, finnish clubs can not afford these players. I ask why, if someone claims here that "KHL is not much better than SHL, SML etc". Does not make sense to move abroad if I have similar league at home, in my city. Or is it all about money??

KHL club (you said about Dinamo Riga) gets paid for losing young (RFA) player to lets say Omsk. SMLiiga club, according to Jussi, gets nothing if a player has free KHL out clause. I dont know man, but if I were a owner of club, I would choose KHL over euro league.

vorky is online now   Reply With Quote