Tennis is my analogy for this lockout and negotiation today. The side in the server's court has changed a few times, and points have been gained here and there. For the most part the teams have been playing a tight defensive set with long, concerted fights for the upper hand and advantage in public opinion.
I thought there were some good strokes in the past (players' proposal), but we have not seen anything close to the shot delivered by the NHL's owners yesterday. If the game was stuck at deuce in discussion of irrelevant detail, this was the baseline rocket that set up a break point.
Showing posts with label Bettman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bettman. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
The Parties In Negotiation
The NHL collective bargaining process is starting to get interesting.
The storyline we are going to live with for the next month (months if we take a cynical view) is Team Owner vs. Team Player.
You know, if it were really that simple, I think this thing would get settled. The complexity of the thing is really much greater.
The storyline we are going to live with for the next month (months if we take a cynical view) is Team Owner vs. Team Player.
You know, if it were really that simple, I think this thing would get settled. The complexity of the thing is really much greater.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Two Steps Forward, Three Steps Back
In the wake of announcements made by Gary Bettman about the seriousness that the NHL is going to start ascribing to head hits, this week the NHL Wheel of Justice assessed Dany Heatley 2 games for a deliberate (if not very injurious) elbow to the head of Steve Ott, Lecavalier was handed a game misconduct for a deliberate high-stick to PK Subban’s head, and even Bruin Brad Marchand is getting a suspension for an unpenalized play. Given that the GMs have just finished a meeting specifically addressing concussions and head hits (among other things), it’s worth asking whether the league has done enough to address what a lot of hockey minds seem to think is a key issue facing the game today?
Ken Dryden, Habs legend and one of the more intelligent players to ever grace the game, had a very smart piece in the Globe and Mail last Friday where he compares today’s perceptions of head hits to yesteryear’s perceptions of the health risks of smoking (i.e. none) and asks the question: "How could we be so stupid?" This is a valid point, and 20 or 30 years from now I think many doctors and family members will be asking the same question. It is all too easy to think of our players as gladiators and heroes, and that head trauma is just part of earning their stripes; part of the the job.
This certainly seems to be the outlook of the NHL executive committee, with very little about head hits and concussions coming of this week’s GM meeting. What we got was a very public 5-point "action plan" from Gary Bettman after the first day, which seemingly calmed sponsors by making it sound like the league is really going to do something. My feelings are obviously a little mixed on the subject. I certainly hate their data on the source of concussions – especially the category labelled "accidental hits." According to their classifications, the Chara hit would have been "accidental" simply because it wasn’t ruled as intentional (i.e. suspension-worthy) by the executive, and I don’t think this provides a very meaningful representation of the data.
One point I was very happy with, and that was the new protocol for determining what constituted a potential concussion threat and how the teams are expected to react. Clear rules are set for what scenario requires an intervention by the team doctor, and the player is removed to “a quiet place free from distraction” for examination with a validated acute concussion assessment tool. These are good steps, most of all because they are clear, logical, and will probably improve the prognosis for players with concussions dramatically. In fact, the only way that this could be better is if doctors had an obligation to share data from tests (maybe at season’s end) for use in evaluating how various rule or equipment changes affect concussion rates.
The rest of the list I’m less excited about. The first item is for Brendan Shanahan to lead an investigation into whether equipment size can be reduced without compromising safety. I think that the answer is a resounding “yes.” Equipment size has grown rather dramatically over the past three decades, mostly in the name of player safety. However, I wonder whether this has backfired somewhat; protection against higher forces seems to have encouraged harder hits, and likely leads to less forgiving impacts between players. It is important to remember that no equipment can protect a player completely from injury, however, and that changes made at a cultural level might be more effective in reducing concussions.
The second, related, item is the naming of Joe Nieuwendyk, Rob Blake, Steve Yzerman and Brendan Shanahan to a committee investigating concussions and concussion-related issues. I have tremendous respect for all of these men as hockey players, but have less faith their ability to ask smart, testable questions about why concussions have been on the rise, and supervise the data collection and analysis required for this job. I’m biased, being a scientist, but I’d like to see people who do this kind of analysis for a living doing this work.
Which brings me to the next point, which is the hiring of an independent safety consulting team to tour the 30 NHL arenas to ensure they conform to the highest safety standards. My question is: how is this not a routine procedure for the league? The same could be said for the last point, which is penalizing teams as a whole for repeated offences by multiple players, though I can’t find anything saying 1) how many offences it takes to become a “repeat offender, or 2) how many “repeated offenders” would qualify as enough for a fine or other punishment.
What I hate most about this is that, unlike the new head injury protocol, it doesn’t seem to be clear, logical, or structured. It requires on-the-fly judgement calls that will lead to inconsistent rulings from referees and the disciplinary committee, which is why so many of us refer to them as the "Wheel of Justice." Inconsistency and judgement calls are ruining the punitive structure of the league both on the ice and in suspensions (although our friend Down Goes Brown seems to have the suspensions figured out). Decades of psychology research have shown that if punishment is not consistent, it doesn’t change behaviour, and that’s what we’re seeing on the ice.
My dad and I were talking about this last night, and came up with a good example: in the old days (for me this means the 1980s), 3 steps and leaving your feet meant a whistle and 2 minutes for charging. Now, charging is a rather abstract concept because, as Colin Campbell freely admits in his emails (remember those?), referees are more or less expected to be inconsistent by making calls based on the score, the number of previous penalties and the flow of the game. Bad judgement by the referee on some stickplay between Subban and Lacavalier in front of the net last night led to frustration and the eventual 2-handed blow to Subban’s face that saw Vinny ejected. It never should have gone that far, even if it meant 2 minutes for PK and none for Lacavalier.
I think overall the league has taken some steps in the right direction by introducing independent safety consultants, clear criteria for high-risk hits, and protocols for how deal with these hits. However, we’ve been taking a lot of steps in the wrong direction over the last couple years in terms of man-games lost to injury. Until the punitive structures are made more severe and consistent, I think we’ll continue to watch that stat rise.
Ken Dryden, Habs legend and one of the more intelligent players to ever grace the game, had a very smart piece in the Globe and Mail last Friday where he compares today’s perceptions of head hits to yesteryear’s perceptions of the health risks of smoking (i.e. none) and asks the question: "How could we be so stupid?" This is a valid point, and 20 or 30 years from now I think many doctors and family members will be asking the same question. It is all too easy to think of our players as gladiators and heroes, and that head trauma is just part of earning their stripes; part of the the job.
This certainly seems to be the outlook of the NHL executive committee, with very little about head hits and concussions coming of this week’s GM meeting. What we got was a very public 5-point "action plan" from Gary Bettman after the first day, which seemingly calmed sponsors by making it sound like the league is really going to do something. My feelings are obviously a little mixed on the subject. I certainly hate their data on the source of concussions – especially the category labelled "accidental hits." According to their classifications, the Chara hit would have been "accidental" simply because it wasn’t ruled as intentional (i.e. suspension-worthy) by the executive, and I don’t think this provides a very meaningful representation of the data.
One point I was very happy with, and that was the new protocol for determining what constituted a potential concussion threat and how the teams are expected to react. Clear rules are set for what scenario requires an intervention by the team doctor, and the player is removed to “a quiet place free from distraction” for examination with a validated acute concussion assessment tool. These are good steps, most of all because they are clear, logical, and will probably improve the prognosis for players with concussions dramatically. In fact, the only way that this could be better is if doctors had an obligation to share data from tests (maybe at season’s end) for use in evaluating how various rule or equipment changes affect concussion rates.
The rest of the list I’m less excited about. The first item is for Brendan Shanahan to lead an investigation into whether equipment size can be reduced without compromising safety. I think that the answer is a resounding “yes.” Equipment size has grown rather dramatically over the past three decades, mostly in the name of player safety. However, I wonder whether this has backfired somewhat; protection against higher forces seems to have encouraged harder hits, and likely leads to less forgiving impacts between players. It is important to remember that no equipment can protect a player completely from injury, however, and that changes made at a cultural level might be more effective in reducing concussions.
The second, related, item is the naming of Joe Nieuwendyk, Rob Blake, Steve Yzerman and Brendan Shanahan to a committee investigating concussions and concussion-related issues. I have tremendous respect for all of these men as hockey players, but have less faith their ability to ask smart, testable questions about why concussions have been on the rise, and supervise the data collection and analysis required for this job. I’m biased, being a scientist, but I’d like to see people who do this kind of analysis for a living doing this work.
Which brings me to the next point, which is the hiring of an independent safety consulting team to tour the 30 NHL arenas to ensure they conform to the highest safety standards. My question is: how is this not a routine procedure for the league? The same could be said for the last point, which is penalizing teams as a whole for repeated offences by multiple players, though I can’t find anything saying 1) how many offences it takes to become a “repeat offender, or 2) how many “repeated offenders” would qualify as enough for a fine or other punishment.
What I hate most about this is that, unlike the new head injury protocol, it doesn’t seem to be clear, logical, or structured. It requires on-the-fly judgement calls that will lead to inconsistent rulings from referees and the disciplinary committee, which is why so many of us refer to them as the "Wheel of Justice." Inconsistency and judgement calls are ruining the punitive structure of the league both on the ice and in suspensions (although our friend Down Goes Brown seems to have the suspensions figured out). Decades of psychology research have shown that if punishment is not consistent, it doesn’t change behaviour, and that’s what we’re seeing on the ice.
My dad and I were talking about this last night, and came up with a good example: in the old days (for me this means the 1980s), 3 steps and leaving your feet meant a whistle and 2 minutes for charging. Now, charging is a rather abstract concept because, as Colin Campbell freely admits in his emails (remember those?), referees are more or less expected to be inconsistent by making calls based on the score, the number of previous penalties and the flow of the game. Bad judgement by the referee on some stickplay between Subban and Lacavalier in front of the net last night led to frustration and the eventual 2-handed blow to Subban’s face that saw Vinny ejected. It never should have gone that far, even if it meant 2 minutes for PK and none for Lacavalier.
I think overall the league has taken some steps in the right direction by introducing independent safety consultants, clear criteria for high-risk hits, and protocols for how deal with these hits. However, we’ve been taking a lot of steps in the wrong direction over the last couple years in terms of man-games lost to injury. Until the punitive structures are made more severe and consistent, I think we’ll continue to watch that stat rise.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Not Yet Time To Move On
There's little that bothers me in this world more than someone telling me to move on. When it comes three exchanges into an important argument
I think the rest of the fans in the NHL, those in Boston, the people who lead the NHL and many of the mainstream media are feeling like the time for complaining is done. The time to watch the race to the playoffs is back.
I can understand this stance from outsiders. They did not watch the Pacioretty hit live, they did not sit there for 10 minutes shaking with genuine fear for a player's life..
There are many reasons things don't change in this world, but one of the main reasons is apathy.
I would bet that 90% of the people who support other teams would prefer to watch hockey without having to worry about one of their players being knocked out cold, paralysed or possibly even dying in the process of vying for two points and an early playoff exit.
Yet most of those people have already moved on to more important concerns like how many points they'll get in their hockey pool from the Panthers:Senators game. Some Montreal media seemed to want to move on to Thursday fretting about lines and production (hugely disappointing). Most disappointing of all, the league (b)leaders are saying the same through their store-bought statements.
When Mike Richards laid his dirty hits, things should have changed. When Patrice Bergeron was savagely checked into the boards, things should have changed. When Matt Cooke made Savard a non-hockey player, things should have changed. Back then Montreal was in the distracted, apathetic masses.
But the things this incident has that the others didn't is the momentum of a city worth of fans - the second hockey-crazed city of the NHL. Fans who happen to sponsor and support the league. This might just for the first time be a critical mass to effect some change. Change that will be better for the players who can play (sorry Trevor Gillies), better for the fans who want their children to watch with them.
All that to say it's not time to move on. It's time to keep up the discourse and to keep the momentum.
The NHL general manager meetings are a week away. It's not too long to hold on. If it has any effect on the rules that protect players and a game from descending further into a violent abyss then it will be worthwhile.
On that note, I encourage you to read a blog that gets the pulse of this thing and tell those that are wimping out that they're wimping out (no need to name names, you'll know who they are).
And while you're about it, press play on this:
I think the rest of the fans in the NHL, those in Boston, the people who lead the NHL and many of the mainstream media are feeling like the time for complaining is done. The time to watch the race to the playoffs is back.
I can understand this stance from outsiders. They did not watch the Pacioretty hit live, they did not sit there for 10 minutes shaking with genuine fear for a player's life..
There are many reasons things don't change in this world, but one of the main reasons is apathy.
I would bet that 90% of the people who support other teams would prefer to watch hockey without having to worry about one of their players being knocked out cold, paralysed or possibly even dying in the process of vying for two points and an early playoff exit.
Yet most of those people have already moved on to more important concerns like how many points they'll get in their hockey pool from the Panthers:Senators game. Some Montreal media seemed to want to move on to Thursday fretting about lines and production (hugely disappointing). Most disappointing of all, the league (b)leaders are saying the same through their store-bought statements.
When Mike Richards laid his dirty hits, things should have changed. When Patrice Bergeron was savagely checked into the boards, things should have changed. When Matt Cooke made Savard a non-hockey player, things should have changed. Back then Montreal was in the distracted, apathetic masses.
But the things this incident has that the others didn't is the momentum of a city worth of fans - the second hockey-crazed city of the NHL. Fans who happen to sponsor and support the league. This might just for the first time be a critical mass to effect some change. Change that will be better for the players who can play (sorry Trevor Gillies), better for the fans who want their children to watch with them.
All that to say it's not time to move on. It's time to keep up the discourse and to keep the momentum.
The NHL general manager meetings are a week away. It's not too long to hold on. If it has any effect on the rules that protect players and a game from descending further into a violent abyss then it will be worthwhile.
On that note, I encourage you to read a blog that gets the pulse of this thing and tell those that are wimping out that they're wimping out (no need to name names, you'll know who they are).
And while you're about it, press play on this:
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Oh Dear, Not Again NHL
Is the NHL trying to solidify its reputation downin the US as a farce?
This story from Puck Daddy shows how the league can't even keep track of the winners of the 4 team trophies it hands out every year (4 a year...).
Pretty comical, and their cockamamie excuses for the error and for their cover up are just as bad.
I'll chalk it up with inability to make proactive decisions on contracts, lack of agreement (or will to sign an agreement) with the IIHF, ridiculously inconsistent officiating (seaon v.s playoffs) and lack of consequence for going over the salary cap as reasons the league needs to take a seriously look at its operations and the people conducting its business.
This story from Puck Daddy shows how the league can't even keep track of the winners of the 4 team trophies it hands out every year (4 a year...).
Pretty comical, and their cockamamie excuses for the error and for their cover up are just as bad.
I'll chalk it up with inability to make proactive decisions on contracts, lack of agreement (or will to sign an agreement) with the IIHF, ridiculously inconsistent officiating (seaon v.s playoffs) and lack of consequence for going over the salary cap as reasons the league needs to take a seriously look at its operations and the people conducting its business.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Bettman Very Small-Minded
This morning, I read that Gary Bettman had recently slammed the IIHF for its comments over players.
The elfin commissioner was right about Rene Fasel being out of line, but completely short-sighted in the rest of his commentary:
"I'm not happy with the way the IIHF somehow feels it has an entitlement to these great athletes who risk their careers, and put themselves out of their own time without anything but love of country to be belittled by the IIHF. If I sounded a little passionate on the subject I apologize, actually, I don't"
I understand that Bettman is the man that has been hired by the owners of the NHL teams (and the men that they believe they own the men who play for them) to make sure the NHL is where hockey lives. I understand he wouold rather not have any hockey games outside the 30 cities where his teams have jurisdiction. But that is small-minded.
The perfect juxtaposition for Bettman's feeble foresight is the grand est sporting event on earth about to take place in 10 days time. Football's World Cup is an event played by professional footballers for their countries, for free. Like the NHL, the English, French, Spanish, Italian, German and every other league worldwide laments the problems of injury and fatigue that the World Cup (and particularly the two-year long qualifying campaign) has on their paid employees.
However, the leagues around the world have gotten over it. More to the point, they have rejigged to be able to take advantage of the surge that such a tournament (and other similar tournaments provide. Savvy teams travel to markets like Malaysia and Japan where equity for the sport has been built internationally, but unmatched in their domestic competition. And, as the owners of Milan Baros' former contract would attest, teams aren't shy to equate international performance (and the spotlight it provides) to tack on millions and millions in transfer fee demands.
In short, while no sport has had the perfect approach, it seems that in football teams and international federations have at least come together enough to realise that they can grow the game together and feast on the harvest together as well.
Hockey is a poor cousin by comparison. Every international competition is met with great reluctance, if it is held at all. Sure the Olympics were great, but even there most NHL owners want out. Instead of looking to Sochi in 4 years as a chance to galvanise another country behind its host team's quest for Gold, NHL relics worry about their 41 homes games only.
But hockey has a real chance to be a number two sport in some countries in Europe. Scandinavia and certain Eastern countries are already there, but comsider that Switzerland, Austria and even Germany already have a keen interest, and this without any of the world's best competing in their home leagues. In Germany at the recent World Hockey Championships, a world record 77,000 fans watched their country's team play the USA. To put that in context, that's more fans for one game most Canadians would never think about watching on TV than teams with 19,000 seaters can hope to pull for a sevent game Stanley Cup series with home ice advantage.
There are a lot of fans in countries like Germany, waiting for the chance to see the world's best, apparently. When the world's best decide they'd rather have an extra week tacked on to their 5 month summer instead, then it's easy to see why the tournament organizer would be a little miffed.
The IIHF is trying to mimic FIFA's model by setting up meaningful competitions like championships and Champions' Leagues, but the NHL wants none of it.
So while we read how the NHL is living its greatest TV moments since 1999 with a final between two American cities where hockey fans actually live, it is still a pathetic set of numbers.
1/3 of TV sets in Chicago and a quarter in Philadelphia as well as 3% of Americans watched the Stanley Cup final Game 1. Sure it looks good next to a Pittsburgh final, but consider for a moment what football can do:
- 93 million viewers on average per game for the World Cup
- Nearly 300 millions viewers around the world for the Final
- Nearly 6 billion viwers over the whole tournament
The NHL TV numbers are child's play in comparison. As a fan of the game. And a believer that hockey really is the best game on earth, it's more than a little bit disappointing to have to sit behind leadership who see their middling success and want to call it a day.
A very small-minded approach indeed.
The elfin commissioner was right about Rene Fasel being out of line, but completely short-sighted in the rest of his commentary:
"I'm not happy with the way the IIHF somehow feels it has an entitlement to these great athletes who risk their careers, and put themselves out of their own time without anything but love of country to be belittled by the IIHF. If I sounded a little passionate on the subject I apologize, actually, I don't"
I understand that Bettman is the man that has been hired by the owners of the NHL teams (and the men that they believe they own the men who play for them) to make sure the NHL is where hockey lives. I understand he wouold rather not have any hockey games outside the 30 cities where his teams have jurisdiction. But that is small-minded.
The perfect juxtaposition for Bettman's feeble foresight is the grand est sporting event on earth about to take place in 10 days time. Football's World Cup is an event played by professional footballers for their countries, for free. Like the NHL, the English, French, Spanish, Italian, German and every other league worldwide laments the problems of injury and fatigue that the World Cup (and particularly the two-year long qualifying campaign) has on their paid employees.
However, the leagues around the world have gotten over it. More to the point, they have rejigged to be able to take advantage of the surge that such a tournament (and other similar tournaments provide. Savvy teams travel to markets like Malaysia and Japan where equity for the sport has been built internationally, but unmatched in their domestic competition. And, as the owners of Milan Baros' former contract would attest, teams aren't shy to equate international performance (and the spotlight it provides) to tack on millions and millions in transfer fee demands.
In short, while no sport has had the perfect approach, it seems that in football teams and international federations have at least come together enough to realise that they can grow the game together and feast on the harvest together as well.
Hockey is a poor cousin by comparison. Every international competition is met with great reluctance, if it is held at all. Sure the Olympics were great, but even there most NHL owners want out. Instead of looking to Sochi in 4 years as a chance to galvanise another country behind its host team's quest for Gold, NHL relics worry about their 41 homes games only.
But hockey has a real chance to be a number two sport in some countries in Europe. Scandinavia and certain Eastern countries are already there, but comsider that Switzerland, Austria and even Germany already have a keen interest, and this without any of the world's best competing in their home leagues. In Germany at the recent World Hockey Championships, a world record 77,000 fans watched their country's team play the USA. To put that in context, that's more fans for one game most Canadians would never think about watching on TV than teams with 19,000 seaters can hope to pull for a sevent game Stanley Cup series with home ice advantage.
There are a lot of fans in countries like Germany, waiting for the chance to see the world's best, apparently. When the world's best decide they'd rather have an extra week tacked on to their 5 month summer instead, then it's easy to see why the tournament organizer would be a little miffed.
The IIHF is trying to mimic FIFA's model by setting up meaningful competitions like championships and Champions' Leagues, but the NHL wants none of it.
So while we read how the NHL is living its greatest TV moments since 1999 with a final between two American cities where hockey fans actually live, it is still a pathetic set of numbers.
1/3 of TV sets in Chicago and a quarter in Philadelphia as well as 3% of Americans watched the Stanley Cup final Game 1. Sure it looks good next to a Pittsburgh final, but consider for a moment what football can do:
- 93 million viewers on average per game for the World Cup
- Nearly 300 millions viewers around the world for the Final
- Nearly 6 billion viwers over the whole tournament
The NHL TV numbers are child's play in comparison. As a fan of the game. And a believer that hockey really is the best game on earth, it's more than a little bit disappointing to have to sit behind leadership who see their middling success and want to call it a day.
A very small-minded approach indeed.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Bettman Selective In Remembering
"We fix the problems. We don't run out on cities."
Except in cases where teams move from hockey markets to experimental sun-belt cities. I can't think of an example of one of those gone wrong though...
Bettman also alluded to:
Again, a bit selective as we have to watch two teams duke it out in LA for some reason and then 2 other teams and a farm club play in the Big Apple.
Bettman also alluded to:
A move to southern Ontario, where the league already has a successful team in the Toronto Maple Leafs, would represent a retrenchment for the NHL.
Again, a bit selective as we have to watch two teams duke it out in LA for some reason and then 2 other teams and a farm club play in the Big Apple.
Monday, November 03, 2008
KHL Poachers
North American Elitist Attitude Not Helping
KHL Poachers
North American Elitist Attitude Not Helping
It's happened to us. We've lost a Russian. One that was actually in our plans.
Back in May, I touched upon the topic of losing Europeans and Russians from the NHL on a couple of occasions (here and here).
Since then, some of the predictions have, well predictably, come to fruition. The biggest scalp for the KHL remains Jaromir Jagr, who even in his late 30s would be an offensive juggernaut in this season's NHL. And an almost as impressive catch was young Alexander Radulov, already an NHL star a mere season and half into a career. In truth, the NHL has been bleeding quite a lot of talent since May.
North American response
Back in July, I touched upon the issue again. This time it was because I was incensed by the attitude I saw permeating the big-wigs in charge of holding this NHL of ours together. They took a very elitist and dismissive tone that I didn't think could be helpful in any way:
The NHL can stay on their high horse if they want to, but I'm not about to agree with them. For one thing, the fact that only 26 Russians play in the NHL today (compared to 77 in 2001) shoots down any retort in my mind. There is no way anyone could convince me that a member of Russia's National taxi squad (back-ups) would not play better and more exciting hockey than most of the guys on Vancouver, Florida, LA or Phoenix. I don't think an NHL coach would be able to keep a straight face while saying he'd rather play Vernon Fiddler than Radulov or Aleksey Morozov.
Valentenko and the Canadiens
Late last week, it was Pavel Valentenko (heir apparent to Francis Bouillon) who would fly the coop. At this stage of his career, it is true he is a mere AHL farmhand, but looking at things that way is naive and deceptive. My assessment of the situation is that Valentenko was one season at most from being a capable defender on the Canadiens (a team currently setting their standards a little higher than most). What that probably means is that he could play for some NHL teams right now. That in itself (if you accept my talent evaluation of Pavel) means that the Canadiens lost more than a Bulldog, they lost potential trade currency as well.
The situation is actually compounded for the Canadiens because 2 of their other top 4 prospects on defence are actually also plying their trade in Mother Russia at the moment. The famous name for casual Habs fans is that of Alexei Emelin – he who is already a fixture on the World Champion Russian National team. The other player is Konstantin Korneev – an impressive offensive defenceman.
At a time when Canadiens fans are coming to realise that Ryan O'Byrne, while big, may not be Mike Komisarek II, and Yannick Weber still needs time a mere 5 months removed from the Memorial Cup. It certainly would be nice to call upon the services of Emelin or Korneev right now. Never mind that in the future it would never hurt to have a bit more choice to put together a seven-man crew that does not include Brisebois, Dandenault or in all likelihood Bouillon or Hamrlik (obviously this is years away).
Following the Valentenko manoeuvre, I saw some of the very same North America elitism around. I point you here to my esteemed fellow blogger Arpon Basu (who normally I agree with, but not today). He had this to say as he waved Valentenko good riddance:
Valentenko's decision was the right one financially, I think. Without much doubt. After all, he is playing against a loaded deck when the Canadiens dress two players worse than himself and those ahead of him in the queue for a spot on a near-nightly basis. And to say that he will be banished to the KHL forever as he suggests is fine for now. But it will be an attitude the NHL will find hard to stand by once the exodus intensifies.
Arpon's basis for this statement, to be fair was a thesis that the KHL was more unstable and could collapse over the coming years and the salary structure with it. But, even this I find too simple.
The KHL plans
You see the KHL has their sights set on bigger things. And to be frank, they have better leadership with which to achieve their goals than does the NHL. Fetisov, a pioneer of international and Russian NHL hockey knows more than marketing textbooks:
For one thing, Russia is trying to change its image. And sports is one of the ways it has targeted to do this. This comprehensive piece from the New York Times gives some good background on ways in which the central government, and indeed the President Putin himself has played a role in this (it is essential reading for anyone who shares my view or intends to slug it out in an argument over it):
That's why this quote, which holds true for the moment (5 months into a new league), is frustrating to see from someone who should know better:
It is at once terribly dismissive and also lacking a bit of imagination. Yes, Ray Emery, Radivojevic and Stumpel are over there. But consider for a moment all the Russian talent never exposed to North American hockey fans (Emelin and Korneev come to mind).
The future
Lose Valentenko and I lose perspective?
It's a fair point. This stuff, though, is not really about Valentenko. Yes, his leaving costs the Habs a chance at not playing Patrice, but the current open door to Russian millions is far more of a concern considering the core of our team (Kovalev, Markov, Kostitsyn).
And, though the KHL is considerably shaky, even on the best days through its existence. Personally, I don't think it really matter whether the KHL survives or not. I think, what the NHL could experience is the generation of super clubs such as CSKA Moscow, Avangard Omsk, AK Bars Kazan. Frankly, if the NHL is relying on the KHL folding, it should realise that certain mega clubs within it are aiming to become as strong as the mighty Red Wings.
Looking beyond the sheltered North American view of the sporting world and its 5 sports, I look to football (the real version). There, the English Premiership currently enjoys top status in the world (revenue and player salary-wise). But saying that obscures the fact that there are really only 4 mega clubs in England with a couple more that could even hope to bridge the gap one day. The other European countries have their mega clubs too, Milan (X2), Roma, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern Munich. The success of these clubs is barely tied at all anymore to the success of Serie A, La Liga or the Bundesliga.
Hockey too, if the KHL clubs are left to poach, will go this way too. The difference with football is that the NHL operates in a system that props up its weaker members to sustain the integrity of the current league alignment.
The attitude taken by the NHL leadership here only promises to let this situation get out of control. It is appeasement in the face of real power. Reinforcing their laissez-faire attitude when the commissioner needs to do a good few days work here is not helpful either, I feel.
So, instead of dismissing these consecutive events as silly curiosities. I think we (and hopefully someone with power to do something) will face reality: what will we do to help our franchises hold onto the top talent in the world?
More importantly for us, where will the Canadiens be when CSKA (operating with a much looser cap structure) come looking for Andrei Markov?
In related news, I stumbled upon this little piece as I was doing due diligence for the current one. It appears Young Perezhogin is no longer banished in some fans' minds. I guess 17 goals in 23 games will do that...
Back in May, I touched upon the topic of losing Europeans and Russians from the NHL on a couple of occasions (here and here).
Since then, some of the predictions have, well predictably, come to fruition. The biggest scalp for the KHL remains Jaromir Jagr, who even in his late 30s would be an offensive juggernaut in this season's NHL. And an almost as impressive catch was young Alexander Radulov, already an NHL star a mere season and half into a career. In truth, the NHL has been bleeding quite a lot of talent since May.
North American response
Back in July, I touched upon the issue again. This time it was because I was incensed by the attitude I saw permeating the big-wigs in charge of holding this NHL of ours together. They took a very elitist and dismissive tone that I didn't think could be helpful in any way:
"We don't view them as a threat," (Bill Daly) said. "We still believe the best hockey players in the world will continue to want to play in the NHL."
The NHL can stay on their high horse if they want to, but I'm not about to agree with them. For one thing, the fact that only 26 Russians play in the NHL today (compared to 77 in 2001) shoots down any retort in my mind. There is no way anyone could convince me that a member of Russia's National taxi squad (back-ups) would not play better and more exciting hockey than most of the guys on Vancouver, Florida, LA or Phoenix. I don't think an NHL coach would be able to keep a straight face while saying he'd rather play Vernon Fiddler than Radulov or Aleksey Morozov.
Valentenko and the Canadiens
Late last week, it was Pavel Valentenko (heir apparent to Francis Bouillon) who would fly the coop. At this stage of his career, it is true he is a mere AHL farmhand, but looking at things that way is naive and deceptive. My assessment of the situation is that Valentenko was one season at most from being a capable defender on the Canadiens (a team currently setting their standards a little higher than most). What that probably means is that he could play for some NHL teams right now. That in itself (if you accept my talent evaluation of Pavel) means that the Canadiens lost more than a Bulldog, they lost potential trade currency as well.
The situation is actually compounded for the Canadiens because 2 of their other top 4 prospects on defence are actually also plying their trade in Mother Russia at the moment. The famous name for casual Habs fans is that of Alexei Emelin – he who is already a fixture on the World Champion Russian National team. The other player is Konstantin Korneev – an impressive offensive defenceman.
At a time when Canadiens fans are coming to realise that Ryan O'Byrne, while big, may not be Mike Komisarek II, and Yannick Weber still needs time a mere 5 months removed from the Memorial Cup. It certainly would be nice to call upon the services of Emelin or Korneev right now. Never mind that in the future it would never hurt to have a bit more choice to put together a seven-man crew that does not include Brisebois, Dandenault or in all likelihood Bouillon or Hamrlik (obviously this is years away).
Following the Valentenko manoeuvre, I saw some of the very same North America elitism around. I point you here to my esteemed fellow blogger Arpon Basu (who normally I agree with, but not today). He had this to say as he waved Valentenko good riddance:
"But what I find difficult to believe is that Valentenko was unable to convince his family that in the long-term, staying the course with his NHL career was the right move here."
Valentenko's decision was the right one financially, I think. Without much doubt. After all, he is playing against a loaded deck when the Canadiens dress two players worse than himself and those ahead of him in the queue for a spot on a near-nightly basis. And to say that he will be banished to the KHL forever as he suggests is fine for now. But it will be an attitude the NHL will find hard to stand by once the exodus intensifies.
Arpon's basis for this statement, to be fair was a thesis that the KHL was more unstable and could collapse over the coming years and the salary structure with it. But, even this I find too simple.
The KHL plans
You see the KHL has their sights set on bigger things. And to be frank, they have better leadership with which to achieve their goals than does the NHL. Fetisov, a pioneer of international and Russian NHL hockey knows more than marketing textbooks:
“I warned Gary Bettman five years ago,” he tells me, referring to the N.H.L. commissioner. “You’ve got your business model, but if you take the best players out of Europe and Russia for cheap — you’ll kill the game, and your own market.” North America, Fetisov argues, is “a small hockey market.” He continues: “For years I’ve tried to tell the Americans to think big. Look beyond Russia and Europe. What about Asia? China? Even in India they play field hockey. Why can’t the N.H.L. see it? They’re afraid. They want to preserve their market. Now it’s too late. We’re gonna take our market share. And you’ll see, it’ll be good for the game.”
For one thing, Russia is trying to change its image. And sports is one of the ways it has targeted to do this. This comprehensive piece from the New York Times gives some good background on ways in which the central government, and indeed the President Putin himself has played a role in this (it is essential reading for anyone who shares my view or intends to slug it out in an argument over it):
"In 2002, Fetisov returned to Russia at Putin’s behest, to head up Rossport, a new federal agency dedicated to reviving the country’s sports infrastructure."
That's why this quote, which holds true for the moment (5 months into a new league), is frustrating to see from someone who should know better:
"As long as the KHL is around, it will be a haven for washed up NHL guys looking to extend their careers by being overpaid over there, or as a second chance for guys who have been banished like Ray Emery."
It is at once terribly dismissive and also lacking a bit of imagination. Yes, Ray Emery, Radivojevic and Stumpel are over there. But consider for a moment all the Russian talent never exposed to North American hockey fans (Emelin and Korneev come to mind).
The future
Lose Valentenko and I lose perspective?
It's a fair point. This stuff, though, is not really about Valentenko. Yes, his leaving costs the Habs a chance at not playing Patrice, but the current open door to Russian millions is far more of a concern considering the core of our team (Kovalev, Markov, Kostitsyn).
And, though the KHL is considerably shaky, even on the best days through its existence. Personally, I don't think it really matter whether the KHL survives or not. I think, what the NHL could experience is the generation of super clubs such as CSKA Moscow, Avangard Omsk, AK Bars Kazan. Frankly, if the NHL is relying on the KHL folding, it should realise that certain mega clubs within it are aiming to become as strong as the mighty Red Wings.
Looking beyond the sheltered North American view of the sporting world and its 5 sports, I look to football (the real version). There, the English Premiership currently enjoys top status in the world (revenue and player salary-wise). But saying that obscures the fact that there are really only 4 mega clubs in England with a couple more that could even hope to bridge the gap one day. The other European countries have their mega clubs too, Milan (X2), Roma, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern Munich. The success of these clubs is barely tied at all anymore to the success of Serie A, La Liga or the Bundesliga.
Hockey too, if the KHL clubs are left to poach, will go this way too. The difference with football is that the NHL operates in a system that props up its weaker members to sustain the integrity of the current league alignment.
The attitude taken by the NHL leadership here only promises to let this situation get out of control. It is appeasement in the face of real power. Reinforcing their laissez-faire attitude when the commissioner needs to do a good few days work here is not helpful either, I feel.
So, instead of dismissing these consecutive events as silly curiosities. I think we (and hopefully someone with power to do something) will face reality: what will we do to help our franchises hold onto the top talent in the world?
More importantly for us, where will the Canadiens be when CSKA (operating with a much looser cap structure) come looking for Andrei Markov?
In related news, I stumbled upon this little piece as I was doing due diligence for the current one. It appears Young Perezhogin is no longer banished in some fans' minds. I guess 17 goals in 23 games will do that...
Monday, September 15, 2008
Koivu Got It Right: Team Should Start in Europe
As a Habs and NHL fan you are surely aware of the up-coming 100th anniversary of the Montreal Canadiens. You may have missed the other important hockey centennial celebration, however – the 100th anniversary of the founding of the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF).
This landmark date passed us by in May. The celebrations took place just down the road at the IIHF World Championships in Quebec City and Halifax. May 15th to be precise. Or the 16th, to be less so (it was a 2-day meeting in Paris, who knows when they worked and when they drank).
More importantly, you may also have missed the IIHF’s announcement the previous May to dedicate a new Cup during the centennial season of international ice hockey honouring the roots of competitive ice hockey. The Cup will be called the Victoria Cup – named in honour of the Victoria skating rink in Montreal where the first organised hockey game was played on March 3, 1875. (This building, no longer in its original state, was located on Stanley street a stone throw from the Bell Centre. If you’re curious, it is now a car rental place and should have a plaque on or nearabout it – though I haven’t sought it out for myself).
This press release from the IIHF gives an idea of what the Victoria Cup is and what it will aspire to become:
Apparently in their infinite arrogance, the NHL will refuse to commit sending the Stanley Cup Champions for this game. Now, I completely understand this decision with the leagues as they currently are. Why would the NHL mandate one of its members to go participate in a game that should be a foregone conclusion?
I can think of several reasons, off the top of my head:
1) To honour the history of hockey
2) To create excitement in Europe (something that is clearly on the league marketers’ minds these past two seasons)
3) Showing the IIHF a little bit of good will once in a while might actually help get the NHL some support in labour disputes like the one over Radulov. His was not the first, and it certainly won't be the last.
Still count your blessings M. Fasel, Bettman and the cronies have done far worse than throw the Rangers Europe's way. That any NHL team at all is competing is an accomplishment. Take for example the fact that Canada held its very first World Championships just last spring in Quebec City and Halifax a hundred years after the IIHF was formed.
And, at least the IIHF got the Rangers, there were 20 odd worse options.
But really, this Victoria Cup could have been greeted in style with either the Stanley Cup champion Red Wings or the league’s elder statesmen Canadiens – both laden with European talent. I think the Canadiens, in particular though, should have been able to rise above both the NHL and Hockey Canada in this case and give this inaugural Victoria Cup its due, especially when celebrating their own anniversary.
Evidently, they were not able to do that. Now the Rangers will likely add the Victoria Cup to their trophy cupboard to go with their 4 Stanley Cups.
Better options
Don’t tell me that the IIHF wanted the Rangers though. Sure, they’re doing some great retroactive spin-doctoring now, but the IIHF wanted higher prestige for their game than this.
Admittedly, I didn’t remember that the Rangers were the first NHL club to ever play against a European club (back in 1975). Their game, which ended in a bit of a wash for CSKA, and strangely didn’t make the top 100 memorable moments in international hockey history.
No, if you are to believe the rumours, barring a commitment for the Stanley Cup champions, the IIHF wanted the Canadiens (One story from last year here):
And even with the Rangers in the bag, he can’t stop dreaming of having the Habs in Bern:
"Ever since the historic game between the Montreal Canadiens and CSKA Moscow on New Year's Eve 1975, hockey fans around the world have been longing for games between NHL clubs and European teams.”
The IIHF president (Rene Faisel) clearly has a sense of history. Because not only are the Canadiens, the oldest and most accomplished NHL team, they also have international pedigree. After all, it is the Canadiens CSKA NYE classic, not the forgettable Rangers game, that is firmly entrenched at no. 23 on the all-time greatest moments. What’s more, the Canadiens and the IIHF are the same age.
So why no Habs?
Are we or are we not the most historic and important hockey team in the world?
This is where I get to thinking that Saku Koivu and his European compatriots, by staying in Europe, are right where they should have been to start the Canadiens "Centenary". in my opinion, someone dropped the ball on this one in the Canadiens chain of command.
It seems the Canadiens would rather have a golf tournament and a few meaningless exhibitions in a 3/4 full arena than acknowledge a new competition named in honour of their city.
I can hear the responses now: "We need to focus on winning the Cup", "We need to be ready for opening night", etc.
Nonsense. If a team can travel to LA from Montreal, it can travel to Switzerland.
And, there is no way that fatigue from early October should affect a professional athlete in May (no matter how much you want to believe Carey Price). If this competition would break them, then they were never champions to begin with.
And if I hear that the Ducks had a slow start because they played in London, I will be astounded that whoever it is buys Brian Burke's spin-doctoring at wholesale rates (we all know what Niedermayer means to them).
No, the Canadiens could handle it. Would win it.
And should have been honoured to be first in line. They should honour their elder hockey cousins after the honour was paid to the city of Montreal in the naming of the Cup. Sharing a hundredth birthday is something special (even if it is 18 months apart really). And, in a year where special things are meant to happen, the Victoria Cup is so much more special than an NHL All Star game sleeper or a draft or a bobblehead night or beer giveaways (well,maybe not that last one...)
I am willing to bet the Wanderers weren't so thrilled at defending every challenge that came their way for the Stanley Cup from Western Canada when they were tring to win their own league. But, now we look back on that and count their Stanley Cups as legendary.
The step up missed
The Canadiens could be in the same enviable position as the mega teams of world football (Real, Man U, AC) who we know by first name – well the hockey equivalents, anyway. As I see it, they currently have some marquee international draws. Finland's captain and arguably best centre ever. The most exciting young Czech forward in the NHL. A serious glut of Russian talent. Slovakia's future star goalie. The entire Belarus hockey system. Add to that, they recently were the NHL standard bearers for Switzerland and France, and you can see there might be interest for the Habs overseas.
What's more, the Canadiens are also (as far as I know) now one of the easiest teams to follow from overseas. First, you have the English and French media engines, and then, there's the wonderful online broadcasts from RDS which can be accessed anywhere (though you'd have to be keen to watch a game at 2 am in parts of Russia). Even so, extended highlights, interviews and the like are all available too, which makes the Canadiens a definite stand out among their NHL peers.
The time is ripe for a team to step beyond the Nashvilles and Atlantas of the league. Too bad it could be the Rangers...
George Gillett should know better. He owns Liverpool, one of the biggest sporting brands in the world. Teams like Liverpool (and especially Man United) frequently take their show on the road to Asia or the Middle East to not only give a shout to fans in those countries, but to stoke the fire and cash in on some revenue along the way. And Liverpool, of all teams – European champions extraordinaire, even when they can't score against Burnley.
I'll be watching the first Victoria Cup, because who knows it might just be history. After all, the KHL is becoming pretty real these days. And, NHL teams are flocking to Europe yearly.
The only dilemma is getting myself a Metallurg shirt in time for the game. Could never stomach a Rangers win...
This landmark date passed us by in May. The celebrations took place just down the road at the IIHF World Championships in Quebec City and Halifax. May 15th to be precise. Or the 16th, to be less so (it was a 2-day meeting in Paris, who knows when they worked and when they drank).
More importantly, you may also have missed the IIHF’s announcement the previous May to dedicate a new Cup during the centennial season of international ice hockey honouring the roots of competitive ice hockey. The Cup will be called the Victoria Cup – named in honour of the Victoria skating rink in Montreal where the first organised hockey game was played on March 3, 1875. (This building, no longer in its original state, was located on Stanley street a stone throw from the Bell Centre. If you’re curious, it is now a car rental place and should have a plaque on or nearabout it – though I haven’t sought it out for myself).
This press release from the IIHF gives an idea of what the Victoria Cup is and what it will aspire to become:
“The one-game Victoria Cup will be played at Berne’s 16,789-capacity PostFinance-Arena, also the main venue for the 2009 IIHF World Championship. The winner will receive the Victoria Cup, a trophy to be awarded annually to the winner of game between Europe’s top team and an NHL-challenger.”
Apparently in their infinite arrogance, the NHL will refuse to commit sending the Stanley Cup Champions for this game. Now, I completely understand this decision with the leagues as they currently are. Why would the NHL mandate one of its members to go participate in a game that should be a foregone conclusion?
I can think of several reasons, off the top of my head:
1) To honour the history of hockey
2) To create excitement in Europe (something that is clearly on the league marketers’ minds these past two seasons)
3) Showing the IIHF a little bit of good will once in a while might actually help get the NHL some support in labour disputes like the one over Radulov. His was not the first, and it certainly won't be the last.
Still count your blessings M. Fasel, Bettman and the cronies have done far worse than throw the Rangers Europe's way. That any NHL team at all is competing is an accomplishment. Take for example the fact that Canada held its very first World Championships just last spring in Quebec City and Halifax a hundred years after the IIHF was formed.
And, at least the IIHF got the Rangers, there were 20 odd worse options.
But really, this Victoria Cup could have been greeted in style with either the Stanley Cup champion Red Wings or the league’s elder statesmen Canadiens – both laden with European talent. I think the Canadiens, in particular though, should have been able to rise above both the NHL and Hockey Canada in this case and give this inaugural Victoria Cup its due, especially when celebrating their own anniversary.
Evidently, they were not able to do that. Now the Rangers will likely add the Victoria Cup to their trophy cupboard to go with their 4 Stanley Cups.
Better options
Don’t tell me that the IIHF wanted the Rangers though. Sure, they’re doing some great retroactive spin-doctoring now, but the IIHF wanted higher prestige for their game than this.
“René Fasel had said he hoped to have ‘a team with some history’ represent the NHL at the Victoria Cup event, and we are extremely pleased the Rangers agreed to participate,” said NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman. “We also are delighted to help the IHF celebrate its 100th Anniversary.”
“We agreed that the Rangers would be the optimal club to represent the NHL in the first Victoria Cup,” said IIHF President René Fasel on the decision to have the New York Rangers become the NHL-challenger in the inaugural Victoria Cup. “The Rangers were the first ever NHL club to play against a European team when they met CSKA Moscow in New York on December 28, 1975, they have been one of the NHL teams that have most often shown enthusiasm to go overseas and there is no doubt that many Europeans fans will have no problems identifying with the heavy international presence that the club has. But first and foremost, the New York Rangers are one of the most identifiable clubs in all of hockey and professional sports.”
Admittedly, I didn’t remember that the Rangers were the first NHL club to ever play against a European club (back in 1975). Their game, which ended in a bit of a wash for CSKA, and strangely didn’t make the top 100 memorable moments in international hockey history.
No, if you are to believe the rumours, barring a commitment for the Stanley Cup champions, the IIHF wanted the Canadiens (One story from last year here):
If International Ice Hockey Federation president Rene Fasel had his choice, the Montreal Canadiens will represent the NHL in a European exhibition series in September 2008.
The final decision will be made by the league in conjunction with the IIHF, but Fasel knows who he wants.
"As a Francophone who grew up as a Canadiens fan, it would be a dream for me to have the Canadiens," he said during an interview in French on Tuesday. "But the decision is not up to me. We will have to talk with the league."
The Canadiens are the oldest hockey team in the world and celebrate their own centennial anniversary in 2009. They would be a perfect fit for what Fasel has in mind for the inaugural exhibition series.
"We'd like to have a team that has a great history behind it like the Original Six teams do," he said.
The IIHF expects the decision about which NHL team will play in the event to be made by December. The European team that competes in 2008 will be the winner of the European Champions Cup tournament next January in St. Petersburg, Russia.
And even with the Rangers in the bag, he can’t stop dreaming of having the Habs in Bern:
"Ever since the historic game between the Montreal Canadiens and CSKA Moscow on New Year's Eve 1975, hockey fans around the world have been longing for games between NHL clubs and European teams.”
The IIHF president (Rene Faisel) clearly has a sense of history. Because not only are the Canadiens, the oldest and most accomplished NHL team, they also have international pedigree. After all, it is the Canadiens CSKA NYE classic, not the forgettable Rangers game, that is firmly entrenched at no. 23 on the all-time greatest moments. What’s more, the Canadiens and the IIHF are the same age.
So why no Habs?
Are we or are we not the most historic and important hockey team in the world?
This is where I get to thinking that Saku Koivu and his European compatriots, by staying in Europe, are right where they should have been to start the Canadiens "Centenary". in my opinion, someone dropped the ball on this one in the Canadiens chain of command.
It seems the Canadiens would rather have a golf tournament and a few meaningless exhibitions in a 3/4 full arena than acknowledge a new competition named in honour of their city.
I can hear the responses now: "We need to focus on winning the Cup", "We need to be ready for opening night", etc.
Nonsense. If a team can travel to LA from Montreal, it can travel to Switzerland.
And, there is no way that fatigue from early October should affect a professional athlete in May (no matter how much you want to believe Carey Price). If this competition would break them, then they were never champions to begin with.
And if I hear that the Ducks had a slow start because they played in London, I will be astounded that whoever it is buys Brian Burke's spin-doctoring at wholesale rates (we all know what Niedermayer means to them).
No, the Canadiens could handle it. Would win it.
And should have been honoured to be first in line. They should honour their elder hockey cousins after the honour was paid to the city of Montreal in the naming of the Cup. Sharing a hundredth birthday is something special (even if it is 18 months apart really). And, in a year where special things are meant to happen, the Victoria Cup is so much more special than an NHL All Star game sleeper or a draft or a bobblehead night or beer giveaways (well,maybe not that last one...)
I am willing to bet the Wanderers weren't so thrilled at defending every challenge that came their way for the Stanley Cup from Western Canada when they were tring to win their own league. But, now we look back on that and count their Stanley Cups as legendary.
The step up missed
The Canadiens could be in the same enviable position as the mega teams of world football (Real, Man U, AC) who we know by first name – well the hockey equivalents, anyway. As I see it, they currently have some marquee international draws. Finland's captain and arguably best centre ever. The most exciting young Czech forward in the NHL. A serious glut of Russian talent. Slovakia's future star goalie. The entire Belarus hockey system. Add to that, they recently were the NHL standard bearers for Switzerland and France, and you can see there might be interest for the Habs overseas.
What's more, the Canadiens are also (as far as I know) now one of the easiest teams to follow from overseas. First, you have the English and French media engines, and then, there's the wonderful online broadcasts from RDS which can be accessed anywhere (though you'd have to be keen to watch a game at 2 am in parts of Russia). Even so, extended highlights, interviews and the like are all available too, which makes the Canadiens a definite stand out among their NHL peers.
The time is ripe for a team to step beyond the Nashvilles and Atlantas of the league. Too bad it could be the Rangers...
George Gillett should know better. He owns Liverpool, one of the biggest sporting brands in the world. Teams like Liverpool (and especially Man United) frequently take their show on the road to Asia or the Middle East to not only give a shout to fans in those countries, but to stoke the fire and cash in on some revenue along the way. And Liverpool, of all teams – European champions extraordinaire, even when they can't score against Burnley.
I'll be watching the first Victoria Cup, because who knows it might just be history. After all, the KHL is becoming pretty real these days. And, NHL teams are flocking to Europe yearly.
The only dilemma is getting myself a Metallurg shirt in time for the game. Could never stomach a Rangers win...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)