|
Post by davidgee on Jun 2, 2013 22:47:26 GMT
A players most critical stage in development is around the start of puberty until the age of 17/18. That is where they develop the skills, the skating, shooting etc. From then on its about adjusting to the pro game. You will not be a good player if essentially you have poor hockey skills no matter how much training and games you play...not everyone is cut out to play in the EIHL. I agree with most of that as it really goes without saying but what I'm trying to get at is that from the point that the player is introduced in to profesional games it is best to be playing with a higher standard of player (ie. the imports) so that they continue developing at a good rate. It is essentially the debate that appears here every so often about our Brits improving further when they share a line with imports rather than on a full Brit line. What I am trying to say is that if imports are more common then the Brits will not be included in match night squads so will not benefit from the knowledge of the better players and will therefor not fullfil their potential. Great players at 17 will go on to be good players at 25 instead of great players. You didn't really list any reason to be fair. Is it really value for money to pay for junior development when they can just pick up some guy just out of a US college who will play for a lowish wage for a couple of years adventure in Europe? I'm not clued up on other leagues in the world but I'd ask if they have always had the same limits that they do now or has it changed now that they have very good junior developments and therefor an ample supply of home born players with a satisfactory skill level that don't come with baggage (imports needing time to settle, learn the language etc.)? If it was illegal why are there so many limits already in place around the EU? Salary caps, age, sex and foreign based players limits. Until it is brought up in court we don't really know but studies suggest that it is all perfectly legal under the regulatory autonomy and freedom of association enjoyed by sports federations throughout Europe. Dual-nationals in the national team is a different debate entirely. I don't understand where these Brits that will go to great foreign leagues are going to come from when the clubs wont bother to develope them. Making it easier for clubs to exclude Brits does nothing but put junior development further down the pecking order in terms of where funds will be directed. Why would a club spend money on all the related expenses to develope a bunch of Brits, many of whom will not make it, for 15 years when they can take the easier, cheaper route of picking up a cheap and ready player from abroad? That is the problem though, there are not enough players coming through who have the skills or potential. We have a rubbish junior development system throughout the UK and changing that is the key to fixing the problems of british-born players, not the import limit, whatever it may be. We have to remember something as well, here in the UK and in a lot of places too the Senior teams don't actually fund the junior teams so even if the league is unlimited imports it would not affect the junior development of players. The issue I think we are more indirectly talking about is clubs taking on Brits. To repeat myself there are always advantages to taking local Brits on instead of imports, these mainly include no accommodation, no flights and no ITC's which to some clubs is a big savings. As you say you don't really know about other leagues so I will try and 'clue' you up on it. Firstly every single league in the world without exception, Eliteserien/KHL/DEL/SM-liga/Serie A etc. you name it inlcudes any dual national with the relevant passport the same as any other homegrown player. This has always been the rule, we are the only pro league in the world not to have it. Following on from that the vast majority of leagues in Europe I believe have no limit on the amount of EU players you can sign and some leagues have no import limits at all (as many North Americans as you like) The EU rule has been the same as far back as I can remember. Anyway lets just take Sweden as an example as I want to hear your thoughts on it. The top Swedish leagues have never counted dual-nats (swedish passport holders) as imports and as far back as I can remember their import rules have always been unlimited EU's and the ability to sign a maximum of 2 non EU's. Essentially there was never an import limit but from next season they are even extending on those rules by having no import limit at all on anyone (as many North Americans as you want). Just so you know last season in the top Swedish league there were an average of just over 4 Europeans on each team and in the 2nd division an average of 3. There were only a few dual-nationals between the two leagues as well. Meanwhile Sweden is the world champions, the number 1 ranked team in the world with the most players in the NHL from any European country. The leagues in Sweden are stacked with Swedish talent despite being allowed unlimited imports. How can this be though? From the theory you seem to be suggesting this wouldn't happen as apparently clubs would just look to cheaper imports abroad rather than taking on Brits and developing them? This is only one example as well, its exactly the same case in the Czech Republic, Germany, Finland etc. P.S I am quite a bit off topic on what I was originally talking about, my main point was about changing the definition of the Brit rule
|
|
|
Post by daviejojo on Jun 6, 2013 7:45:00 GMT
Again nothing really today I hear. Finger on the pulse as always
|
|
spudeeelad
Junior
Posts: 949
EIHL Team: Manchester Storm
NHL Team: Tampa Bay Lightning
|
Post by spudeeelad on Jun 6, 2013 11:39:34 GMT
First of all, I am replying to several previous posts here, so some of this reply won't be directed related to the person quoted. Whoever, said the below No. Instead, it should be a minimum number of Brits on the ice to prevent the exact problem you point out. In the EPL, you can actually sign as many imports as you see fit, but you can only dress 4 of them on any given night and you must have at least 3 Brits on the ice at all times - which is a 50% import to Brit ratio in most first line cases. This works brilliantly in Guildford's case because they always have a spare import who's job is actually to train the juniors, but is still registered as a player for the senior EPL team. However, he will only be 'dressed' when an injury occurs to another import on their roster and they 'draft' him in so to speak. Couple of quotes here; You're both wrong. Having someone playing at a level they are clearly not good enough for is simply a waste of time. If anything, it's worse because they clearly see they're outmatched and confidence gets destroyed, thus making it even harder to progress. To progress properly, we need a proper system in every city, but sadly their isn't the finance, circumstances, infrastructure or co-operation within the British game to allow this. The ONLY place currently with what I would describe as an outstanding junior system, as I often point out, is Sheffield. They are the ONLY place in the country that has a team in all of; EIHL EPL ENL1 ENL2 This allows players who are ENL standard to train with the EPL team, so the gap isn't insurmountable, as it would be from ENL > EIHL. A player can play at an appropriate level whilst training with the team 1 step above them and can gradually progress through the ranks, it's been done time and again there and below are just a few; www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=37293www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=39667www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=20901www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=38637www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=37294Andre Payette is running a 'made in Sheffield' system at the Steeldogs where every player, except the imports and maybe 1 or 2 others, are all locally trained Brits who've come through their junior ranks, then subsequently through the ENL > EPL and finally, for those good enough at EPL, to the EIHL. Sheffield are absolutely blessed to have teams at every level and they can only do this thanks to Ice Sheffield basically giving them free ice-time since they have 2 ice-pads, meaning they do have the infrastructure and do not need the finance side so much. Steelers and Steeldogs have signed an agreement of co-operation between the 2 sides, allowing Steelers to pretty much pick whoever they want from the Steeldogs roster to 'play-up' for any games Steelers have where Steeldogs don't need that player, like mid-week games. In other words, it's kind of a universal 2-way with the Brits that Steeldogs sign. The issue, for Scottish teams in particular, is that, because of geography and lack of both their own lower-level teams and other's not being there either, most of your locals will have to jump from SNL (which I would argue is only on-par with ENL2), straight to EIHL. This gap is certainly insurmountable without any stops in between and any player who make such a leap probably wouldn't go to EIHL anyway and would go to some camps in Canada/USA instead. Yes it is, unless worded properly. That is why the current restrictions are based on where you trained, not what passports you hold. If it was based on passport, you wouldn't even be able to discriminate against EU passport holders because they have just as much right to 'work' as you do and whilst this is Ice Hockey, from a government point of view, it's still just 'a job'. What kind of nonsense is this?! How on earth do you think this would help develop Brits?! Instead of signing some locals, you would just sign players like these and then have your 10 imports on top of these players. All this would do is eliminate the bench warming positions that most Brits currently have and make it even harder for them to progress to EIHL level. www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=10314www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=9685www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=19238www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=11490www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=12885
|
|
|
Post by coloradoflyer on Jun 6, 2013 13:31:40 GMT
i was thinking the same the other day spud, there should be brits on every line playing with imports and that would make them better for sure.
|
|
|
Post by davidgee on Jun 6, 2013 16:03:24 GMT
First of all, I am replying to several previous posts here, so some of this reply won't be directed related to the person quoted. Whoever, said the below No. Instead, it should be a minimum number of Brits on the ice to prevent the exact problem you point out. In the EPL, you can actually sign as many imports as you see fit, but you can only dress 4 of them on any given night and you must have at least 3 Brits on the ice at all times - which is a 50% import to Brit ratio in most first line cases. This works brilliantly in Guildford's case because they always have a spare import who's job is actually to train the juniors, but is still registered as a player for the senior EPL team. However, he will only be 'dressed' when an injury occurs to another import on their roster and they 'draft' him in so to speak. Couple of quotes here; You're both wrong. Having someone playing at a level they are clearly not good enough for is simply a waste of time. If anything, it's worse because they clearly see they're outmatched and confidence gets destroyed, thus making it even harder to progress. To progress properly, we need a proper system in every city, but sadly their isn't the finance, circumstances, infrastructure or co-operation within the British game to allow this. The ONLY place currently with what I would describe as an outstanding junior system, as I often point out, is Sheffield. They are the ONLY place in the country that has a team in all of; EIHL EPL ENL1 ENL2 This allows players who are ENL standard to train with the EPL team, so the gap isn't insurmountable, as it would be from ENL > EIHL. A player can play at an appropriate level whilst training with the team 1 step above them and can gradually progress through the ranks, it's been done time and again there and below are just a few; www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=37293www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=39667www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=20901www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=38637www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=37294Andre Payette is running a 'made in Sheffield' system at the Steeldogs where every player, except the imports and maybe 1 or 2 others, are all locally trained Brits who've come through their junior ranks, then subsequently through the ENL > EPL and finally, for those good enough at EPL, to the EIHL. Sheffield are absolutely blessed to have teams at every level and they can only do this thanks to Ice Sheffield basically giving them free ice-time since they have 2 ice-pads, meaning they do have the infrastructure and do not need the finance side so much. Steelers and Steeldogs have signed an agreement of co-operation between the 2 sides, allowing Steelers to pretty much pick whoever they want from the Steeldogs roster to 'play-up' for any games Steelers have where Steeldogs don't need that player, like mid-week games. In other words, it's kind of a universal 2-way with the Brits that Steeldogs sign. The issue, for Scottish teams in particular, is that, because of geography and lack of both their own lower-level teams and other's not being there either, most of your locals will have to jump from SNL (which I would argue is only on-par with ENL2), straight to EIHL. This gap is certainly insurmountable without any stops in between and any player who make such a leap probably wouldn't go to EIHL anyway and would go to some camps in Canada/USA instead. Yes it is, unless worded properly. That is why the current restrictions are based on where you trained, not what passports you hold. If it was based on passport, you wouldn't even be able to discriminate against EU passport holders because they have just as much right to 'work' as you do and whilst this is Ice Hockey, from a government point of view, it's still just 'a job'. What kind of nonsense is this?! How on earth do you think this would help develop Brits?! Instead of signing some locals, you would just sign players like these and then have your 10 imports on top of these players. All this would do is eliminate the bench warming positions that most Brits currently have and make it even harder for them to progress to EIHL level. www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=10314www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=9685www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=19238www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=11490www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=12885A minimum number of Brits on the ice?! Seriously?! What an absolute joke of a rule that would be. You know what is arguably one of the most important things in the development of players - Competition. With this theory not only are you gifting players spots on teams based on where they were born but you are actually advocating them to not even compete over ice time also based on where they are born! What a farce and its no wonder no pro league in the world has a rule like that, in fact no league in the world including developmental leagues have a rule like that. Onto your next point about no point having players playing at a level they are clearly not good enough for and I actually agree and I don't know why you said I was wrong as its the same point I was making. Sticking players at a high level and just expecting them to develop is wrong. The main development for a player occurs between puberty and the age of 17/18 and after that its about adjusting to pro competition and competing for places. If your good enough and have the potential then you will earn a spot on merit, if your not then you should try your luck at a lower level of competition which is suitable for you. Your point about the Sheffield junior system is partially right and wrong. What you have is a good development STRUCTURE towards the pro ranks but in reality a currently very poor development system. I'll ask the same question I asked for the fife junior system. How many NHL scouts have heard of the Sheffield junior system and how many players have been drafted in the NHL, originally from there? How many CHL scouts (WHL,QMJHL,OHL) have heard of the system and drafted players from their in the CHL import draft? 1 (Robert Farmer). In fact how many players ever produced in Sheffield have actually gone on to play abroad or do anything better than playing in the top league in Britain ever, 0? Ben O'Connor left Sheffield at the age of 14 to go to North America and even now he is actually playing at a level no better than the EIHL. Robert Farmer who joined Sheffield at the age of 14 managed to last 1 game in the OHL where he had to actually compete for his spot and when he went to Kazakhstan he didn't even make it to the start of the season. Is that really an 'outstanding junior system'? I point you to an actual 'outstanding junior system' that I spoke about previously on this thread in Jesenice, Slovenia. A city with a population of 13,000 has a player in the NHL, 3 in the DEL, 5 in the EBEL, 3 in the Allsvenskan, many previously in the Czech, Swedish leagues and many players who have been NHL draft picks with the latest one being Luka Gracner who will go at this years draft. That is a good development system that produces players who can compete in top leagues based on merit and not a system that produces players who can compete at low levels due to being gifted spots because of where they were born. Your next point about the reclassification of Brits being 'nonsense' is nonsense Let's get one thing straight here before as well. No matter what the import rules are in the EIHL the actual junior development of players will not change. These junior clubs are self-funded and don't have any imports in them. The issue we are more talking about here is the pro-career prospects of British trained players. Firstly what this will do is eliminate the problem we both agreed on earlier of Brits being at a level which they are clearly not good enough to be at and where they subsequently sitting on the bench getting splinters doing nothing good for the development of their own games. What this will do though is bring good Brits into the league and most importantly at a price which actually represents their worth. If a team has the option of 2 players of identical standards and the same wage demands but one requires housing, flights and ITC and the other doesn't, who do you think the team will choose? The point about Brits wages being at the actual level they should be is incredibly important because what we see now as a result of inflated wages is unambitious Brits with no desire to go and improve themselves or play at a better level abroad because they know when it comes down to it, there is such a lack of choice for clubs that they are guaranteed a spot and an inflated wage back here in the EIHL. Subsequently what this will do then is encourage Brits to go abroad and improve themselves to earn more money. In Sweden, a country I will go onto after, if they paid the Swedish players more than they worth and more than other leagues would pay them do you really think there would be 62 Swedes in the NHL and 16 in the KHL and the Swedes would be the number 1 ranked nation in the world? the simple answer is no. We have to also accept as well that if we want a strong National team then we need our best brits playing abroad in better standard leagues then the EIHL. The perfect example of all of this is Robert Dowd, due to the lack of Brits, Sheffield have gone all out to get him and have been successful. How on earth is that good for the development of Robert Dowd that he is coming back from the Allsvenskan to the EIHL?! and that is as a direct result of the current rules of the EIHL. Now lets move onto my other point which is the EIHL is the only pro league in the world without exception, to not count dual-nats the same as homegorwn players. What I want to do more closely is look at Sweden and get an answer from you on it which no one on this thread has been capable of doing. I will copy and paste what I posted earlier. 'Anyway lets just take Sweden as an example as I want to hear your thoughts on it. The top Swedish leagues have never counted dual-nats (swedish passport holders) as imports and as far back as I can remember their import rules have always been unlimited EU's and the ability to sign a maximum of 2 non EU's. Essentially there was never an import limit but from next season they are even extending on those rules by having no import limit at all on anyone (as many North Americans as you want). Just so you know last season in the top Swedish league there were an average of just over 4 Europeans on each team and in the 2nd division an average of 3. There were only a few dual-nationals between the two leagues as well. Meanwhile Sweden is the world champions, the number 1 ranked team in the world with the most players in the NHL from any European country. The leagues in Sweden are stacked with Swedish talent despite being allowed unlimited imports. How can this be though? From the theory you seem to be suggesting this wouldn't happen as apparently clubs would just look to cheaper imports abroad rather than taking on Brits and developing them? This is only one example as well, its exactly the same case in the Czech Republic, Germany, Finland etc'
|
|
|
Post by sparkymark75 on Jun 6, 2013 17:23:57 GMT
Let's face it, the Fife Brits aren't exactly competing for their spots currently, are they?
|
|
spudeeelad
Junior
Posts: 949
EIHL Team: Manchester Storm
NHL Team: Tampa Bay Lightning
|
Post by spudeeelad on Jun 6, 2013 18:20:12 GMT
First of all, I am replying to several previous posts here, so some of this reply won't be directed related to the person quoted. Whoever, said the below No. Instead, it should be a minimum number of Brits on the ice to prevent the exact problem you point out. In the EPL, you can actually sign as many imports as you see fit, but you can only dress 4 of them on any given night and you must have at least 3 Brits on the ice at all times - which is a 50% import to Brit ratio in most first line cases. This works brilliantly in Guildford's case because they always have a spare import who's job is actually to train the juniors, but is still registered as a player for the senior EPL team. However, he will only be 'dressed' when an injury occurs to another import on their roster and they 'draft' him in so to speak. Couple of quotes here; You're both wrong. Having someone playing at a level they are clearly not good enough for is simply a waste of time. If anything, it's worse because they clearly see they're outmatched and confidence gets destroyed, thus making it even harder to progress. To progress properly, we need a proper system in every city, but sadly their isn't the finance, circumstances, infrastructure or co-operation within the British game to allow this. The ONLY place currently with what I would describe as an outstanding junior system, as I often point out, is Sheffield. They are the ONLY place in the country that has a team in all of; EIHL EPL ENL1 ENL2 This allows players who are ENL standard to train with the EPL team, so the gap isn't insurmountable, as it would be from ENL > EIHL. A player can play at an appropriate level whilst training with the team 1 step above them and can gradually progress through the ranks, it's been done time and again there and below are just a few; www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=37293www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=39667www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=20901www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=38637www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=37294Andre Payette is running a 'made in Sheffield' system at the Steeldogs where every player, except the imports and maybe 1 or 2 others, are all locally trained Brits who've come through their junior ranks, then subsequently through the ENL > EPL and finally, for those good enough at EPL, to the EIHL. Sheffield are absolutely blessed to have teams at every level and they can only do this thanks to Ice Sheffield basically giving them free ice-time since they have 2 ice-pads, meaning they do have the infrastructure and do not need the finance side so much. Steelers and Steeldogs have signed an agreement of co-operation between the 2 sides, allowing Steelers to pretty much pick whoever they want from the Steeldogs roster to 'play-up' for any games Steelers have where Steeldogs don't need that player, like mid-week games. In other words, it's kind of a universal 2-way with the Brits that Steeldogs sign. The issue, for Scottish teams in particular, is that, because of geography and lack of both their own lower-level teams and other's not being there either, most of your locals will have to jump from SNL (which I would argue is only on-par with ENL2), straight to EIHL. This gap is certainly insurmountable without any stops in between and any player who make such a leap probably wouldn't go to EIHL anyway and would go to some camps in Canada/USA instead. Yes it is, unless worded properly. That is why the current restrictions are based on where you trained, not what passports you hold. If it was based on passport, you wouldn't even be able to discriminate against EU passport holders because they have just as much right to 'work' as you do and whilst this is Ice Hockey, from a government point of view, it's still just 'a job'. What kind of nonsense is this?! How on earth do you think this would help develop Brits?! Instead of signing some locals, you would just sign players like these and then have your 10 imports on top of these players. All this would do is eliminate the bench warming positions that most Brits currently have and make it even harder for them to progress to EIHL level. www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=10314www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=9685www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=19238www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=11490www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=12885A minimum number of Brits on the ice?! Seriously?! What an absolute joke of a rule that would be. You know what is arguably one of the most important things in the development of players - Competition. With this theory not only are you gifting players spots on teams based on where they were born but you are actually advocating them to not even compete over ice time also based on where they are born! What a farce and its no wonder no pro league in the world has a rule like that, in fact no league in the world including developmental leagues have a rule like that. Onto your next point about no point having players playing at a level they are clearly not good enough for and I actually agree and I don't know why you said I was wrong as its the same point I was making. Sticking players at a high level and just expecting them to develop is wrong. The main development for a player occurs between puberty and the age of 17/18 and after that its about adjusting to pro competition and competing for places. If your good enough and have the potential then you will earn a spot on merit, if your not then you should try your luck at a lower level of competition which is suitable for you. Your point about the Sheffield junior system is partially right and wrong. What you have is a good development STRUCTURE towards the pro ranks but in reality a currently very poor development system. I'll ask the same question I asked for the fife junior system. How many NHL scouts have heard of the Sheffield junior system and how many players have been drafted in the NHL, originally from there? How many CHL scouts (WHL,QMJHL,OHL) have heard of the system and drafted players from their in the CHL import draft? 1 (Robert Farmer). In fact how many players ever produced in Sheffield have actually gone on to play abroad or do anything better than playing in the top league in Britain ever, 0? Ben O'Connor left Sheffield at the age of 14 to go to North America and even now he is actually playing at a level no better than the EIHL. Robert Farmer who joined Sheffield at the age of 14 managed to last 1 game in the OHL where he had to actually compete for his spot and when he went to Kazakhstan he didn't even make it to the start of the season. Is that really an 'outstanding junior system'? I point you to an actual 'outstanding junior system' that I spoke about previously on this thread in Jesenice, Slovenia. A city with a population of 13,000 has a player in the NHL, 3 in the DEL, 5 in the EBEL, 3 in the Allsvenskan, many previously in the Czech, Swedish leagues and many players who have been NHL draft picks with the latest one being Luka Gracner who will go at this years draft. That is a good development system that produces players who can compete in top leagues based on merit and not a system that produces players who can compete at low levels due to being gifted spots because of where they were born. Your next point about the reclassification of Brits being 'nonsense' is nonsense Let's get one thing straight here before as well. No matter what the import rules are in the EIHL the actual junior development of players will not change. These junior clubs are self-funded and don't have any imports in them. The issue we are more talking about here is the pro-career prospects of British trained players. Firstly what this will do is eliminate the problem we both agreed on earlier of Brits being at a level which they are clearly not good enough to be at and where they subsequently sitting on the bench getting splinters doing nothing good for the development of their own games. What this will do though is bring good Brits into the league and most importantly at a price which actually represents their worth. If a team has the option of 2 players of identical standards and the same wage demands but one requires housing, flights and ITC and the other doesn't, who do you think the team will choose? The point about Brits wages being at the actual level they should be is incredibly important because what we see now as a result of inflated wages is unambitious Brits with no desire to go and improve themselves or play at a better level abroad because they know when it comes down to it, there is such a lack of choice for clubs that they are guaranteed a spot and an inflated wage back here in the EIHL. Subsequently what this will do then is encourage Brits to go abroad and improve themselves to earn more money. In Sweden, a country I will go onto after, if they paid the Swedish players more than they worth and more than other leagues would pay them do you really think there would be 62 Swedes in the NHL and 16 in the KHL and the Swedes would be the number 1 ranked nation in the world? the simple answer is no. We have to also accept as well that if we want a strong National team then we need our best brits playing abroad in better standard leagues then the EIHL. The perfect example of all of this is Robert Dowd, due to the lack of Brits, Sheffield have gone all out to get him and have been successful. How on earth is that good for the development of Robert Dowd that he is coming back from the Allsvenskan to the EIHL?! and that is as a direct result of the current rules of the EIHL. Now lets move onto my other point which is the EIHL is the only pro league in the world without exception, to not count dual-nats the same as homegorwn players. What I want to do more closely is look at Sweden and get an answer from you on it which no one on this thread has been capable of doing. I will copy and paste what I posted earlier. 'Anyway lets just take Sweden as an example as I want to hear your thoughts on it. The top Swedish leagues have never counted dual-nats (swedish passport holders) as imports and as far back as I can remember their import rules have always been unlimited EU's and the ability to sign a maximum of 2 non EU's. Essentially there was never an import limit but from next season they are even extending on those rules by having no import limit at all on anyone (as many North Americans as you want). Just so you know last season in the top Swedish league there were an average of just over 4 Europeans on each team and in the 2nd division an average of 3. There were only a few dual-nationals between the two leagues as well. Meanwhile Sweden is the world champions, the number 1 ranked team in the world with the most players in the NHL from any European country. The leagues in Sweden are stacked with Swedish talent despite being allowed unlimited imports. How can this be though? From the theory you seem to be suggesting this wouldn't happen as apparently clubs would just look to cheaper imports abroad rather than taking on Brits and developing them? This is only one example as well, its exactly the same case in the Czech Republic, Germany, Finland etc' Contradicting yourself really. There is one simple problem with your theory. You are basing it on players getting drafted to NHL/CHL etc, that will not work in the UK. Why? Simple, whilst it might get systems noticed and stuff, that doesn't do anything for the club. We are not Sweden, we are not Czech Republic or Slovakia, we do not have the infrastructure, amongst other things, to churn out top quality players like these teams do. Therefore, money needs to come from somewhere. Owners want to see benefits of their investment and whilst players being drafted abroad in prestigious leagues is great (particularly for that player), it does not do anything for the producing club. Since Ice Hockey does not have transfer fees, the return for an owner on their investment is zero. Whilst there may be long term benefits, owners don't really care about that in the UK. As to a minimum number of Brits on the ice, I fail to see your point whatsoever. Whilst it guarantees some players a place, the quality of opposition can sometimes be top quality. For example, if you're playing for Telford Tigers as a Forward, you may just find yourself up against Manchester's 6'5" ex-NHL D man Robert Schnabel. What better way is there to develop an EPL quality Brit into an EIHL quality Brit than playing against someone who has reached the pinnacle of the game and played in most of the other best leagues in the world as well, including Sweden, Finland, Czech Republic and Slovakia? It means you have to seriously up your game if you want to progress. The difference here though is that because the number of players like Robert Schnabel who can be on the ice at any given time is restricted, it doesn't make the overall leap in quality on a team level too great to be bridged. You cannot compare nations like Sweden to the UK. The Swedes have been playing Ice Hockey and developing players for as long as we have Football.
|
|
|
Post by davidgee on Jun 6, 2013 20:19:08 GMT
A minimum number of Brits on the ice?! Seriously?! What an absolute joke of a rule that would be. You know what is arguably one of the most important things in the development of players - Competition. With this theory not only are you gifting players spots on teams based on where they were born but you are actually advocating them to not even compete over ice time also based on where they are born! What a farce and its no wonder no pro league in the world has a rule like that, in fact no league in the world including developmental leagues have a rule like that. Onto your next point about no point having players playing at a level they are clearly not good enough for and I actually agree and I don't know why you said I was wrong as its the same point I was making. Sticking players at a high level and just expecting them to develop is wrong. The main development for a player occurs between puberty and the age of 17/18 and after that its about adjusting to pro competition and competing for places. If your good enough and have the potential then you will earn a spot on merit, if your not then you should try your luck at a lower level of competition which is suitable for you. Your point about the Sheffield junior system is partially right and wrong. What you have is a good development STRUCTURE towards the pro ranks but in reality a currently very poor development system. I'll ask the same question I asked for the fife junior system. How many NHL scouts have heard of the Sheffield junior system and how many players have been drafted in the NHL, originally from there? How many CHL scouts (WHL,QMJHL,OHL) have heard of the system and drafted players from their in the CHL import draft? 1 (Robert Farmer). In fact how many players ever produced in Sheffield have actually gone on to play abroad or do anything better than playing in the top league in Britain ever, 0? Ben O'Connor left Sheffield at the age of 14 to go to North America and even now he is actually playing at a level no better than the EIHL. Robert Farmer who joined Sheffield at the age of 14 managed to last 1 game in the OHL where he had to actually compete for his spot and when he went to Kazakhstan he didn't even make it to the start of the season. Is that really an 'outstanding junior system'? I point you to an actual 'outstanding junior system' that I spoke about previously on this thread in Jesenice, Slovenia. A city with a population of 13,000 has a player in the NHL, 3 in the DEL, 5 in the EBEL, 3 in the Allsvenskan, many previously in the Czech, Swedish leagues and many players who have been NHL draft picks with the latest one being Luka Gracner who will go at this years draft. That is a good development system that produces players who can compete in top leagues based on merit and not a system that produces players who can compete at low levels due to being gifted spots because of where they were born. Your next point about the reclassification of Brits being 'nonsense' is nonsense Let's get one thing straight here before as well. No matter what the import rules are in the EIHL the actual junior development of players will not change. These junior clubs are self-funded and don't have any imports in them. The issue we are more talking about here is the pro-career prospects of British trained players. Firstly what this will do is eliminate the problem we both agreed on earlier of Brits being at a level which they are clearly not good enough to be at and where they subsequently sitting on the bench getting splinters doing nothing good for the development of their own games. What this will do though is bring good Brits into the league and most importantly at a price which actually represents their worth. If a team has the option of 2 players of identical standards and the same wage demands but one requires housing, flights and ITC and the other doesn't, who do you think the team will choose? The point about Brits wages being at the actual level they should be is incredibly important because what we see now as a result of inflated wages is unambitious Brits with no desire to go and improve themselves or play at a better level abroad because they know when it comes down to it, there is such a lack of choice for clubs that they are guaranteed a spot and an inflated wage back here in the EIHL. Subsequently what this will do then is encourage Brits to go abroad and improve themselves to earn more money. In Sweden, a country I will go onto after, if they paid the Swedish players more than they worth and more than other leagues would pay them do you really think there would be 62 Swedes in the NHL and 16 in the KHL and the Swedes would be the number 1 ranked nation in the world? the simple answer is no. We have to also accept as well that if we want a strong National team then we need our best brits playing abroad in better standard leagues then the EIHL. The perfect example of all of this is Robert Dowd, due to the lack of Brits, Sheffield have gone all out to get him and have been successful. How on earth is that good for the development of Robert Dowd that he is coming back from the Allsvenskan to the EIHL?! and that is as a direct result of the current rules of the EIHL. Now lets move onto my other point which is the EIHL is the only pro league in the world without exception, to not count dual-nats the same as homegorwn players. What I want to do more closely is look at Sweden and get an answer from you on it which no one on this thread has been capable of doing. I will copy and paste what I posted earlier. 'Anyway lets just take Sweden as an example as I want to hear your thoughts on it. The top Swedish leagues have never counted dual-nats (swedish passport holders) as imports and as far back as I can remember their import rules have always been unlimited EU's and the ability to sign a maximum of 2 non EU's. Essentially there was never an import limit but from next season they are even extending on those rules by having no import limit at all on anyone (as many North Americans as you want). Just so you know last season in the top Swedish league there were an average of just over 4 Europeans on each team and in the 2nd division an average of 3. There were only a few dual-nationals between the two leagues as well. Meanwhile Sweden is the world champions, the number 1 ranked team in the world with the most players in the NHL from any European country. The leagues in Sweden are stacked with Swedish talent despite being allowed unlimited imports. How can this be though? From the theory you seem to be suggesting this wouldn't happen as apparently clubs would just look to cheaper imports abroad rather than taking on Brits and developing them? This is only one example as well, its exactly the same case in the Czech Republic, Germany, Finland etc' Contradicting yourself really. There is one simple problem with your theory. You are basing it on players getting drafted to NHL/CHL etc, that will not work in the UK. Why? Simple, whilst it might get systems noticed and stuff, that doesn't do anything for the club. We are not Sweden, we are not Czech Republic or Slovakia, we do not have the infrastructure, amongst other things, to churn out top quality players like these teams do. Therefore, money needs to come from somewhere. Owners want to see benefits of their investment and whilst players being drafted abroad in prestigious leagues is great (particularly for that player), it does not do anything for the producing club. Since Ice Hockey does not have transfer fees, the return for an owner on their investment is zero. Whilst there may be long term benefits, owners don't really care about that in the UK. As to a minimum number of Brits on the ice, I fail to see your point whatsoever. Whilst it guarantees some players a place, the quality of opposition can sometimes be top quality. For example, if you're playing for Telford Tigers as a Forward, you may just find yourself up against Manchester's 6'5" ex-NHL D man Robert Schnabel. What better way is there to develop an EPL quality Brit into an EIHL quality Brit than playing against someone who has reached the pinnacle of the game and played in most of the other best leagues in the world as well, including Sweden, Finland, Czech Republic and Slovakia? It means you have to seriously up your game if you want to progress. The difference here though is that because the number of players like Robert Schnabel who can be on the ice at any given time is restricted, it doesn't make the overall leap in quality on a team level too great to be bridged. You cannot compare nations like Sweden to the UK. The Swedes have been playing Ice Hockey and developing players for as long as we have Football. How am I contradicting myself?! Once again, my question hasn't been answered. I wasn't asking about the UK directly I was asking about your theory and using Sweden as an example,'The Swedes have been playing Ice Hockey and developing players for as long as we have Football.' is not an answer. Sweden is just one example, going by your theory every hockey nation in the world wouldn't develop players because every single pro league in the world doesn't count dual-nats as imports. Your argument about owners wanting a return for money is non-existant. Junior clubs are not run by EIHL owners, they are run individually and are not there to make money but rather produce players. An EIHL owner makes an investment on every player they sign, import or Brit and all they are interested in is getting the best product on the ice for the money available, to sell the most tickets, hence why Brits making themselves available at the right price is what needs to happen. If your theory was right then owners wouldn't sign anyone, imports or Brits because they would see 'zero return' due to there not being 'transfer fees' You then say you fail to see my point on the 'brits on ice' rule and follow it by saying 'Whilst it guarantees some players a place'. That is the exact problem and it guarantees them ice time based on where they were born despite their actual ability! What an absolute farce that is. Where is the competition in that? Hell, with that sort of rule why don't we just have one side playing with 4 players on the ice the whole game instead of 5 and maybe give teams a 3 goal head-start. This is Ice Hockey, imagine the look on an imports face when they come here and hear that rule, must think its an absolute joke and would have to agree with them. Its no wonder that not one league on the entire planet bar the EPL has a rule like that. You then follow it up by saying what better way to develop then play against a guy who played in the NHL a decade ago because 'It means you have to seriously up your game if you want to progress', well no it doesn't because with these rules doesn't matter how you do, your guaranteed a spot on the team, your guaranteed ice time because of where you were born and at the end of the day there is no competition for your place. You said I couldn't compare Sweden to the UK which I wasn't even doing but fine lets have it your way, lets have a look at France, a country with a similar size population, sport has the same standing in the country and the standard of the leagues are very similar. Now the import rules in the Ligue Magnus are the following: 1) Dual-Nationals don't count as imports 2) Maximum of 4 North Americans 3) Unlimited Europeans 4)Minimum of 6 French Players dressed for each game (dual nats included). Now lets have a look at the make-up of the Ligue Magnus last season (14 teams), there were 59 North Americans, 75 Europeans, 209 Domestic French Players and a couple of Dual Nats. The French team is ranked 13 in the world and has been in the top IIHF division for the past 6 years. Now how does this work? Going by your theory as there 'no need to sign locals' how does it work out that despite every team being allowed to sign unlimited europeans and dual-nationals that there are 209 domestic French players in the league? Interestingly 16 out of the 22 players on the French roster last season played in leagues outside of France, now isn't that what I suggested would happen when players wages are actually brought down to the level they should be France has also had numerous players drafted, most recently Tim Bozon last season and currently has 2 players basically in the NHL (Antoine Roussel & Stephane Da Costa). Don't forget Cristobel Huet as well although he is now in Switzerland. How does that work? Ice Hockey in France is as popular there as it is here, how are they able to 'churn out top quality' players and we aren't?
|
|
|
Post by dan27 on Jun 6, 2013 20:32:57 GMT
Boy you guys can write a novel!! Wish I had the time read it all let alone think and write it! Roll the hockey I say
|
|
spudeeelad
Junior
Posts: 949
EIHL Team: Manchester Storm
NHL Team: Tampa Bay Lightning
|
Post by spudeeelad on Jun 7, 2013 8:02:56 GMT
Boy you guys can write a novel!! Wish I had the time read it all let alone think and write it! Roll the hockey I say Shame you don't have time, a good reasoned debate is something that we don't have enough of in UKIH because it's usually descended into childish antics by now.
|
|
spudeeelad
Junior
Posts: 949
EIHL Team: Manchester Storm
NHL Team: Tampa Bay Lightning
|
Post by spudeeelad on Jun 7, 2013 8:25:14 GMT
How am I contradicting myself?! Once again, my question hasn't been answered. I wasn't asking about the UK directly I was asking about your theory and using Sweden as an example,'The Swedes have been playing Ice Hockey and developing players for as long as we have Football.' is not an answer. Sweden is just one example, going by your theory every hockey nation in the world wouldn't develop players because every single pro league in the world doesn't count dual-nats as imports. Your argument about owners wanting a return for money is non-existant. Junior clubs are not run by EIHL owners, they are run individually and are not there to make money but rather produce players. An EIHL owner makes an investment on every player they sign, import or Brit and all they are interested in is getting the best product on the ice for the money available, to sell the most tickets, hence why Brits making themselves available at the right price is what needs to happen. If your theory was right then owners wouldn't sign anyone, imports or Brits because they would see 'zero return' due to there not being 'transfer fees' You then say you fail to see my point on the 'brits on ice' rule and follow it by saying 'Whilst it guarantees some players a place'. That is the exact problem and it guarantees them ice time based on where they were born despite their actual ability! What an absolute farce that is. Where is the competition in that? Hell, with that sort of rule why don't we just have one side playing with 4 players on the ice the whole game instead of 5 and maybe give teams a 3 goal head-start. This is Ice Hockey, imagine the look on an imports face when they come here and hear that rule, must think its an absolute joke and would have to agree with them. Its no wonder that not one league on the entire planet bar the EPL has a rule like that. You then follow it up by saying what better way to develop then play against a guy who played in the NHL a decade ago because 'It means you have to seriously up your game if you want to progress', well no it doesn't because with these rules doesn't matter how you do, your guaranteed a spot on the team, your guaranteed ice time because of where you were born and at the end of the day there is no competition for your place. You said I couldn't compare Sweden to the UK which I wasn't even doing but fine lets have it your way, lets have a look at France, a country with a similar size population, sport has the same standing in the country and the standard of the leagues are very similar. Now the import rules in the Ligue Magnus are the following: 1) Dual-Nationals don't count as imports 2) Maximum of 4 North Americans 3) Unlimited Europeans 4)Minimum of 6 French Players dressed for each game (dual nats included). Now lets have a look at the make-up of the Ligue Magnus last season (14 teams), there were 59 North Americans, 75 Europeans, 209 Domestic French Players and a couple of Dual Nats. The French team is ranked 13 in the world and has been in the top IIHF division for the past 6 years. Now how does this work? Going by your theory as there 'no need to sign locals' how does it work out that despite every team being allowed to sign unlimited europeans and dual-nationals that there are 209 domestic French players in the league? Interestingly 16 out of the 22 players on the French roster last season played in leagues outside of France, now isn't that what I suggested would happen when players wages are actually brought down to the level they should be France has also had numerous players drafted, most recently Tim Bozon last season and currently has 2 players basically in the NHL (Antoine Roussel & Stephane Da Costa). Don't forget Cristobel Huet as well although he is now in Switzerland. How does that work? Ice Hockey in France is as popular there as it is here, how are they able to 'churn out top quality' players and we aren't? I say you can't compare the UK and Sweden because for us to get the Infrastructure in place would need a huge financial investment from somewhere. Not sure what you're saying about Junior teams because that's not true in most cases, unless the EIHL is even more backwards than I thought. I'm fairly sure that Cardiff do their own junior system, though i'm not sure about the rest. My team runs the junior team and has done since the EIHL days, as do most teams in the EPL and some clubs like Guildford and Bracknell have one of their imports coaching their junior sides. The point in having Brits guaranteed a place is because what is the point in having a league like EIHL where there are barely any Brits in it at all? Brits are far more likely to stay at the club than an import and fans, in particular kids, can relate much easier to a local player than they can an import. For example, who am I more likely to relate to - a player like Aaron Nell who's the same age as me or some middle aged Canadian? Who is more likely to be a kids hero for the next 5 years? The Brit of course. Your point about investment in every player who is signed is only half true. If signing a player, or set of players, helps the club make a profit or break even then it's not a zero return.
|
|
|
Post by jamestkirk on Jun 7, 2013 10:11:37 GMT
How am I contradicting myself?! Once again, my question hasn't been answered. I wasn't asking about the UK directly I was asking about your theory and using Sweden as an example,'The Swedes have been playing Ice Hockey and developing players for as long as we have Football.' is not an answer. Sweden is just one example, going by your theory every hockey nation in the world wouldn't develop players because every single pro league in the world doesn't count dual-nats as imports. Your argument about owners wanting a return for money is non-existant. Junior clubs are not run by EIHL owners, they are run individually and are not there to make money but rather produce players. An EIHL owner makes an investment on every player they sign, import or Brit and all they are interested in is getting the best product on the ice for the money available, to sell the most tickets, hence why Brits making themselves available at the right price is what needs to happen. If your theory was right then owners wouldn't sign anyone, imports or Brits because they would see 'zero return' due to there not being 'transfer fees' You then say you fail to see my point on the 'brits on ice' rule and follow it by saying 'Whilst it guarantees some players a place'. That is the exact problem and it guarantees them ice time based on where they were born despite their actual ability! What an absolute farce that is. Where is the competition in that? Hell, with that sort of rule why don't we just have one side playing with 4 players on the ice the whole game instead of 5 and maybe give teams a 3 goal head-start. This is Ice Hockey, imagine the look on an imports face when they come here and hear that rule, must think its an absolute joke and would have to agree with them. Its no wonder that not one league on the entire planet bar the EPL has a rule like that. You then follow it up by saying what better way to develop then play against a guy who played in the NHL a decade ago because 'It means you have to seriously up your game if you want to progress', well no it doesn't because with these rules doesn't matter how you do, your guaranteed a spot on the team, your guaranteed ice time because of where you were born and at the end of the day there is no competition for your place. You said I couldn't compare Sweden to the UK which I wasn't even doing but fine lets have it your way, lets have a look at France, a country with a similar size population, sport has the same standing in the country and the standard of the leagues are very similar. Now the import rules in the Ligue Magnus are the following: 1) Dual-Nationals don't count as imports 2) Maximum of 4 North Americans 3) Unlimited Europeans 4)Minimum of 6 French Players dressed for each game (dual nats included). Now lets have a look at the make-up of the Ligue Magnus last season (14 teams), there were 59 North Americans, 75 Europeans, 209 Domestic French Players and a couple of Dual Nats. The French team is ranked 13 in the world and has been in the top IIHF division for the past 6 years. Now how does this work? Going by your theory as there 'no need to sign locals' how does it work out that despite every team being allowed to sign unlimited europeans and dual-nationals that there are 209 domestic French players in the league? Interestingly 16 out of the 22 players on the French roster last season played in leagues outside of France, now isn't that what I suggested would happen when players wages are actually brought down to the level they should be France has also had numerous players drafted, most recently Tim Bozon last season and currently has 2 players basically in the NHL (Antoine Roussel & Stephane Da Costa). Don't forget Cristobel Huet as well although he is now in Switzerland. How does that work? Ice Hockey in France is as popular there as it is here, how are they able to 'churn out top quality' players and we aren't? I say you can't compare the UK and Sweden because for us to get the Infrastructure in place would need a huge financial investment from somewhere. Not sure what you're saying about Junior teams because that's not true in most cases, unless the EIHL is even more backwards than I thought. I'm fairly sure that Cardiff do their own junior system, though i'm not sure about the rest. My team runs the junior team and has done since the EIHL days, as do most teams in the EPL and some clubs like Guildford and Bracknell have one of their imports coaching their junior sides. The point in having Brits guaranteed a place is because what is the point in having a league like EIHL where there are barely any Brits in it at all? Brits are far more likely to stay at the club than an import and fans, in particular kids, can relate much easier to a local player than they can an import. For example, who am I more likely to relate to - a player like Aaron Nell who's the same age as me or some middle aged Canadian? Who is more likely to be a kids hero for the next 5 years? The Brit of course. Your point about investment in every player who is signed is only half true. If signing a player, or set of players, helps the club make a profit or break even then it's not a zero return. Erm last time I looked around 60 Brits were playing in the top pro league in the UK - hardly "barely " any!!!!
|
|
|
Post by davidgee on Jun 7, 2013 11:28:41 GMT
How am I contradicting myself?! Once again, my question hasn't been answered. I wasn't asking about the UK directly I was asking about your theory and using Sweden as an example,'The Swedes have been playing Ice Hockey and developing players for as long as we have Football.' is not an answer. Sweden is just one example, going by your theory every hockey nation in the world wouldn't develop players because every single pro league in the world doesn't count dual-nats as imports. Your argument about owners wanting a return for money is non-existant. Junior clubs are not run by EIHL owners, they are run individually and are not there to make money but rather produce players. An EIHL owner makes an investment on every player they sign, import or Brit and all they are interested in is getting the best product on the ice for the money available, to sell the most tickets, hence why Brits making themselves available at the right price is what needs to happen. If your theory was right then owners wouldn't sign anyone, imports or Brits because they would see 'zero return' due to there not being 'transfer fees' You then say you fail to see my point on the 'brits on ice' rule and follow it by saying 'Whilst it guarantees some players a place'. That is the exact problem and it guarantees them ice time based on where they were born despite their actual ability! What an absolute farce that is. Where is the competition in that? Hell, with that sort of rule why don't we just have one side playing with 4 players on the ice the whole game instead of 5 and maybe give teams a 3 goal head-start. This is Ice Hockey, imagine the look on an imports face when they come here and hear that rule, must think its an absolute joke and would have to agree with them. Its no wonder that not one league on the entire planet bar the EPL has a rule like that. You then follow it up by saying what better way to develop then play against a guy who played in the NHL a decade ago because 'It means you have to seriously up your game if you want to progress', well no it doesn't because with these rules doesn't matter how you do, your guaranteed a spot on the team, your guaranteed ice time because of where you were born and at the end of the day there is no competition for your place. You said I couldn't compare Sweden to the UK which I wasn't even doing but fine lets have it your way, lets have a look at France, a country with a similar size population, sport has the same standing in the country and the standard of the leagues are very similar. Now the import rules in the Ligue Magnus are the following: 1) Dual-Nationals don't count as imports 2) Maximum of 4 North Americans 3) Unlimited Europeans 4)Minimum of 6 French Players dressed for each game (dual nats included). Now lets have a look at the make-up of the Ligue Magnus last season (14 teams), there were 59 North Americans, 75 Europeans, 209 Domestic French Players and a couple of Dual Nats. The French team is ranked 13 in the world and has been in the top IIHF division for the past 6 years. Now how does this work? Going by your theory as there 'no need to sign locals' how does it work out that despite every team being allowed to sign unlimited europeans and dual-nationals that there are 209 domestic French players in the league? Interestingly 16 out of the 22 players on the French roster last season played in leagues outside of France, now isn't that what I suggested would happen when players wages are actually brought down to the level they should be France has also had numerous players drafted, most recently Tim Bozon last season and currently has 2 players basically in the NHL (Antoine Roussel & Stephane Da Costa). Don't forget Cristobel Huet as well although he is now in Switzerland. How does that work? Ice Hockey in France is as popular there as it is here, how are they able to 'churn out top quality' players and we aren't? I say you can't compare the UK and Sweden because for us to get the Infrastructure in place would need a huge financial investment from somewhere. Not sure what you're saying about Junior teams because that's not true in most cases, unless the EIHL is even more backwards than I thought. I'm fairly sure that Cardiff do their own junior system, though i'm not sure about the rest. My team runs the junior team and has done since the EIHL days, as do most teams in the EPL and some clubs like Guildford and Bracknell have one of their imports coaching their junior sides. The point in having Brits guaranteed a place is because what is the point in having a league like EIHL where there are barely any Brits in it at all? Brits are far more likely to stay at the club than an import and fans, in particular kids, can relate much easier to a local player than they can an import. For example, who am I more likely to relate to - a player like Aaron Nell who's the same age as me or some middle aged Canadian? Who is more likely to be a kids hero for the next 5 years? The Brit of course. Your point about investment in every player who is signed is only half true. If signing a player, or set of players, helps the club make a profit or break even then it's not a zero return. Did you actually read my post? In your original post you said 'Since Ice Hockey does not have transfer fees, the return for an owner on their investment is zero' and I replied by saying 'An EIHL owner makes an investment on every player they sign, import or Brit and all they are interested in is getting the best product on the ice for the money available, to sell the most tickets'. You have now seemingly followed that by telling me I'm wrong despite agreeing with what I said and contradicting what you originally argued by saying - 'Your point about investment in every player who is signed is only half true. If signing a player, or set of players, helps the club make a profit or break even then it's not a zero return'- In most cases what I said about the ownership of junior teams is correct. Sure clubs sometimes let the youth clubs use their name or logo but they don't actually own them or have any official involvement. For example Fife doesn't own the Kirkcaldy junior clubs and Nottingham doesn't own anyone bar themselves. That whole Sheffield structure you listed previously is run separately. On your points about Brits being guaranteed places, again have you not read my post? Seems you just missed out answering any of my questions about the French system because you don't have an answer and also because it completely contradicts your theory. Even so I am not arguing for unlimited imports at this point, I am arguing for the definition of British player to be changed. Why would the EIHL have 'barely any Brits in it' - in France any team could sign a team and not have one domestic french player in it yet there are 209 French players in the league! Why is that? Your point about relating more to a player like Aaron Nell is irrelevant to this debate as well, what has that got to do with the definition of Brits and development? Are you saying we should base our system on the ability to 'relate to players'
|
|
spudeeelad
Junior
Posts: 949
EIHL Team: Manchester Storm
NHL Team: Tampa Bay Lightning
|
Post by spudeeelad on Jun 7, 2013 11:47:17 GMT
I say you can't compare the UK and Sweden because for us to get the Infrastructure in place would need a huge financial investment from somewhere. Not sure what you're saying about Junior teams because that's not true in most cases, unless the EIHL is even more backwards than I thought. I'm fairly sure that Cardiff do their own junior system, though i'm not sure about the rest. My team runs the junior team and has done since the EIHL days, as do most teams in the EPL and some clubs like Guildford and Bracknell have one of their imports coaching their junior sides. The point in having Brits guaranteed a place is because what is the point in having a league like EIHL where there are barely any Brits in it at all? Brits are far more likely to stay at the club than an import and fans, in particular kids, can relate much easier to a local player than they can an import. For example, who am I more likely to relate to - a player like Aaron Nell who's the same age as me or some middle aged Canadian? Who is more likely to be a kids hero for the next 5 years? The Brit of course. Your point about investment in every player who is signed is only half true. If signing a player, or set of players, helps the club make a profit or break even then it's not a zero return. Did you actually read my post? In your original post you said 'Since Ice Hockey does not have transfer fees, the return for an owner on their investment is zero' and I replied by saying 'An EIHL owner makes an investment on every player they sign, import or Brit and all they are interested in is getting the best product on the ice for the money available, to sell the most tickets'. You have now seemingly followed that by telling me I'm wrong despite agreeing with what I said and contradicting what you originally argued by saying - 'Your point about investment in every player who is signed is only half true. If signing a player, or set of players, helps the club make a profit or break even then it's not a zero return'- In most cases what I said about the ownership of junior teams is correct. Sure clubs sometimes let the youth clubs use their name or logo but they don't actually own them or have any official involvement. For example Fife doesn't own the Kirkcaldy junior clubs and Nottingham doesn't own anyone bar themselves. That whole Sheffield structure you listed previously is run separately. On your points about Brits being guaranteed places, again have you not read my post? Seems you just missed out answering any of my questions about the French system because you don't have an answer and also because it completely contradicts your theory. Even so I am not arguing for unlimited imports at this point, I am arguing for the definition of British player to be changed. Why would the EIHL have 'barely any Brits in it' - in France any team could sign a team and not have one domestic french player in it yet there are 209 French players in the league! Why is that? Your point about relating more to a player like Aaron Nell is irrelevant to this debate as well, what has that got to do with the definition of Brits and development? Are you saying we should base our system on the ability to 'relate to players' The things about other countries I didn't answer because the answer would be ridiculously long, those kind of things are hard to sum up in typing. But put it this way, if you compare the UK to Canada, I have a friend in Canada and she trains with her junior team more often than my EPL senior team does! It's stuff like that which you have to go into forensic detail to examine why and what the possible solutions are. You could debate these things forever. It seems only EIHL teams don't run their own junior setups, as we at Phoenix do, Bison do, Guildford do, Bracknell do and Swindon do. Not sure about MKL, Peterborough or Slough. Sheffield is independently run, though Payette has massive involvement and often coaches the juniors personally. But maybe that's just yet another thing wrong with how EIHL is run. But then again, why do EIHL teams need junior teams when they can let EPL/ENL teams do it for them then just offer the products of their academies more money to play for them? No. But being able to relate to players would gets kids far more interested, which in turn would be good for the future. Because it would be no good. The few spots that currently do go to Brits would instead go to dual-nationals. I do not know why countries like France manage to get the balance right, but over here, all it would mean is that clubs that keep their imports would be able to hire more imports because their previous ones are no longer imports because they have now acquired a British passport.
|
|
spudeeelad
Junior
Posts: 949
EIHL Team: Manchester Storm
NHL Team: Tampa Bay Lightning
|
Post by spudeeelad on Jun 7, 2013 11:49:01 GMT
Erm last time I looked around 60 Brits were playing in the top pro league in the UK - hardly "barely " any!!!! How many of these would you say got significant ice time? I assume you're including Backup Netminders in your equations, correct me if i'm wrong but they 'play' all the time right these British NMs? Fairly sure that only Smuprh and Ben Bowns did.
|
|