Talk:Kontinental Hockey League/Archive 1

Economic kolaps

uh, why is there not one word in the piece about the league's financial difficulties and whether it can even survive to the playoffs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.138.71 (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Financial difficulties to date are documented in the season thread, as they are are ongoing. As far as "surviving the playoffs" is concerned, that's a gross overstatement and far removed from the reality of the situation. The league is getting by fine.--Lvivske (talk) 07:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I plan on soon writing a section devoted to the Leagues financial difficulties including in the first season a team going bankrupt (Khimik Voskresensk), and the minimum salary being lowered to a laughable 300,000 Rubles (USD $9700), compared to NHL minimum of USD $500,000. Also in the 2009 season the salary cap was reduced by 20% and is currently less then half of the NHL average salary payroll.

In an other section I will detail the terrible attendance records achieved by the KHL teams, including the fact that "Avangard OMSK", the KHL team with the best attendance in 2008 season was a paltry 7,881, compare that to the worst NHL attendance record of 2008-2009, the NY Islanders, had an average attendance of 13,784. The worst Attendance record in the KHL season 2008-2009 was Vitjaz, with a sad 3,624.

In yet another section I will detail how corrupt Russian officials often have suspicious links to corporations that control teams, or have partial ownership. 9 of the 24 teams are suspected to be in or close to dept by the end of this season as well, and I have articles which detail certain teams failure to pay salaries due to poor economic situations.

"Lvivske", I will guess that you are living in Russia (Or possibly even worse Belarus/Crimea), so I forgive you for not having objective news sources like we have in the West, but the league is not "getting by fine", it is quite clear to anyone who chooses to do their research. Slaja (talk) 05:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You do realize alot of what you have listed does not mean the league is in rough shape. They are a different level league than the NHL. People try to compare the two but you can not do it, its like apples and oranges. The attendance example is the most laughable of the bunch since all of the arenas in the KHL hold less than the lowest NHL attendance (and most less than 7500) so of course they will have less attendance. The salaries is also not indicative of a league in bad shape. They are a lower tier league, of course their minimum salaries are lower, they also charge the equivalent amount less than NHL teams do for ticket prices. Please, try not to use POV in your article writing, as you are clearly prone to it in your attack on lvivske which insinuated being from a certain place was a bad thing. (oh and a look at his user page would actually tell you he lives in Canada) -DJSasso (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm just amazing that, considering my profile says where I'm from, how he guessed Russia, Belarus, or Crimea. Flabbergasted. That aside, the West has no idea what's going on in the KHL. Most Canadian sources get their info from Russian blogs or message boards anyway. I find sources don't even both to translate original sources themselves. --Львівське (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, alot of the North American news media is out to lunch on what happens in Europe when it comes to hockey. Not just the KHL but all of the leagues. How many times I read a story on tsn or the like quoting a blog in europe surprises me. There have been more than a few times I went to the original story and had a friend who knows the language translate it and it doesn't even really say what tsn said it said. -DJSasso (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

...and don't even get started with bush league services like RDS, they can't even get Canadian hockey right! --Львівське (talk) 05:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Every Statistic I wrote indicated financial trouble, please don't call it laughable. In economics there is a principle called "supply and demand'. If there is sufficient demand for Hockey in Russia/Latvia/Kazakhstan/Belarus then the supply increases. Therefore, as stadiums did in the NHL from decades ago to present, they would increase in size. KHL stadium are so small and the attendance so poor because of little demand, and of course little financial means. The small salaries and salary payrolls also have a clear link to poor economics. As profitability increases then so does compensation as a natural market force to ensure that there will be competent employees. As profitability decreases, as in the KHL, then the compensation goes down, this is why I was outlining the low salaries/salary payrolls. None of this is POV, simply economics. Lower ticket prices, actually is another financial indicator, as demand falls for a product/service (entertainment) then the price at which people are willing to buy decreases as well (the equilibrium will lower, and the demand curve will shift). And a team going bankrupt after 1 season is a pretty good example of financial difficulty, no matter what way you look at it.

I was not "attacking" "Lvivske" when I guessed his place of residence, if you read my sentence it had to do with media coverage. If you have ever been to Russia, Crimea, and Belarus (which I have, I was born in Minsk, so don't tell me about "personal attacks") then you would know that in all these places the news objectivity is so poor it's sad. All three countries(RUS/BEL/UKR) are consistently ranked as worst for media freedom. Often the Russian Mafia has ownership of TV stations, and so forth, as a Slav the situation is quite disheartening. This is why I find your insults aimed at western media very strange, it is so free here...

Both of you avoided my comments regarding corruption in the KHL. It is widespread. The Russian mafia controls still 30% of Russia's formal economy (approx. USD $480 Billion), as well as > 90% of its informal economy. As I said if you look in to the ownership of many of the teams, they have dubious links.

"Yet appearances are in some ways misleading. Experts estimate 30 per cent of the Russian economy is still in gangster hands. Most of these gangsters now work in local politics and even in the Kremlin itself and are still prone to using illegal methods to further their interests."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1579733/Russian-mafia-killings-threaten-Putin-legacy.html

Some of these "gangsters" in politics and the Kremlin have links to KHL teams. Look it up. Avoidance doesn't make things disappear. Slaja (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Also a hint if you choose to look at corrupt companies/politicians links to KHL, look carefully at their political allegiance, and discrepancies on their personal information. (on another topic, this Holiday break I aim to write a section on this article carefully documenting everything I have listed here, to ensure objectivity, I'm quite sick of people glorifying the countries who force thousands (like me) from their ancestral homeland. Things are not "fine" there.) Slaja (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want to talk about Russian mafia, it's of note that Vityaz Chekhov is run/owned by the mafia. I've read of players getting the crap kicked out of them between periods if they were dogging it.--Львівське (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Right but none of this means they are in trouble. It just means they cater to a different market type than the NHL. The AHL, WHL, OHL, QMJHL and on and on all charge less money than the NHL and pay less in salaries (in the case of the pro leagues) and play in smaller arenas. But no one would say that the leagues are in financial troubles or are not in good shape. It simply means they target a different market. As for who owns what, again that still doesn't mean the league is in trouble, the 2 of the original six teams in the NHL were owned by mobsters and a third one was controlled by one as well if not officially owned. No one would ever say the NHL was doomed when 50% of it was owned/controlled by mobsters. You clearly have an issue with the KHL for some reason or other. If you have well sourced information that is written in a non-point of view manner that is relevant then add it to the relevant season page. Its c comments like this "I'm quite sick of people glorifying the countries who force thousands (like me) from their ancestral homeland. " that indicate to me you just have a grudge against the KHL or russian media or something in general. This is where the concern is. -DJSasso (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't see any word about league's financial difficulties in the NHL article and that league is clearly in much worse shape than KHL is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.97.44 (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It isn't, actually, but that is a separate topic deserving separate discussion on the NHL article's talk page. Resolute 21:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

What people need to understand is that the KHL doesn't run the same economic model as the NHL. It isn't a bunch of franchises trying to make money. It's teams run by very rich men who keep them as toys. Sponsors pay the money to keep teams afloat; I can't think of one team that is self sustaining. It's still very much based on the Soviet system, where local companies, municipalities or state departments iced teams - in fact, it hasnt changed at all. A team may collapse, a few may fold, but new ones will take their place. The Moscow based teams will always be there; there's always sponsorship for it. The league itself has no problems, only specific teams.--Львівське (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Ufa

The club from Ufa has the flag of Bashkortostan rather than Russia. If I understand Russia it is a federation, and Bashkortostan is one of the federal subects right? Then, is Ufa not in Russia? To be consistent should we not either change the flags to represent federal subjects, or, perhaps just use their national (country) flag? Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I dunno, I'm trying to find proper balance. I think the autonomous republics should get some recognition, especially since most teams fly the flags of those republics vs. russia (ufa and ak bars). Oblasts don't have their own president, constitution, etc. and many don't even have flags so it'd be a no-go to put them at the same level. User:Lvivske —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably we should check to see what other leagues do on here. I know the NHL just uses US and Canadian flags for example. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

True, but the NHL deals with two countries whereas the KHL includes several nations & nation-states. Bashikorostan, Tatarstan, etc. are all included on the wiki listing of sovereign states (though, under russias section) and kind of makes for a unique situation in this sense. Perhaps an additional line to the infobox detailing the national hockey federation's jurisdiction the team is in (by doing so, emphasizing its in russia)? Something along these lines?

The Russian Federation and the UK could be two comparable groups, with the latter's Welsh, Scotland, England, etc. getting separate representation.

If you look at Spain, Catalonia has its own national team. As well, some team pages list the location as "City, Catalonia", leaving out the "Spain" suffix. Food for thought.User:Lvivske

I argue for the use of the Russian flag for all Russian teams. I do agree that the republics should get some sort of recognition, but I think precedent uses the national flag. For Wales, Scotland...etc, these kingdoms within the UK have their own national teams for most sports (ex. soccer), whereas Bashkortostan and Tatarstan do not have their own national teams (just like Canadian provinces and US states). Since, from what I understand, the KHL is a member of the IIHF, we should only use flags of national teams recognized by the IIHF. You could argue that the republics' presidents and constitutions are similar to the premiers and laws of Canadian provinces. In fact, wikipedia states the republics are essenially homes for different ethnic groups, which would put them on equal terms with Quebec, Nanuvut and Native lands (ex. Iroquois nations) within Canada. I changed them to Russian flags, until someone comes up with a different arguement, or brings up another precedent. Ezc 195 (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Another precedent? Ugh. Well we could look at the Rugby super league, which lists the nations within the UK (no union jacks to be seen there). Quebec is a bad example since its a province, on the same level as an oblast. It has no autonomy, unlike the said republics. Now, there is clear definition between the countries and republics listed to avoid confusion; they're not being grouped on the same level. the icons serve as a visual reminder. Also, in regards to IIHF registration and national teams, though they are not strong enough to compete individually, they DO have their own nationally sponsored tournaments (like other countries do, like ukraine and kazakhstan) User:Lvivske

Canada is perhaps the most decentralized federation in the world, and still Provincial flags are not used for example, on the NHL or MLB pages. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Provinces and Autonomous Republics are entirely different things. If the argument was for national representation of provinces, then different flags would be used for every oblast...which isn't whats happeningUser:Lvivske

Russian republics are a lot more like Canadian provinces than Russian provinces are like Canadian provinces. If that makes any sense at all... BTW, I just want consistency across hockey articles, I have no grudge against Russia or anything. RUssian provincial governors are appointed, Canadian provincial premiers (and American State Governors) are elected. Russian Republics have their own constitutions, well so do American states (Canadian ones do too, but they are unwritten, ahh the Westminster system...) Provinces in Canada are responsible for education, environmental matters, natural resources (just for example) and negotiate their own trade deals. Wow, who would have thought this was a hockey page eh... Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Lvivske, I made some notes from your points:

-Are you from Canada? Quebec has a different civil code, language laws, education system and immigration law than the rest of Canada. Essentially, everything in Quebec is done differently than the other provinces in Canada. Quebec also unofficially takes care of some of their own international relations (they donate their own human aid seperately from the rest of Canada). I would argue they are more independed than the republics within Russia. Quebec does have autonomy in some aspects.

-For Rugby, England, Wales and Scotland compete as seperate national teams in official international competition (just like in Soccer and many other sports), the republics do not. These republically sponsored tournaments sounds no different than provincially sponsered tournaments (in lacrosse, Iroqois natives compete internationally as their own nation).

-I think we should stick to full members, associate members and affiliate members of the IIHF (notice Great Britain appears as a collective, mainly because they are not strong enough to have Wales, Scotland... compete individually). None of the republics are listed as members, yet China, Chinese Taipei (though this is a touchy subject, nontheless, Hong Kong is in China-proper) and Hong Kong are all individual members, yet all within the nation of China. In the hockey world, these republics could apply in a similar to the "internal" Chinese teams.

I feel the only reason the republics are showing up is because people from that region may want better recognition. When it comes down to it, the republics are internal to Russia and not associated with the IIHF in any way, I think that should be the bar. There's no point this going back and forth between us (it's not a huge deal), so I'll let someone else weigh in with there thoughts and if it's needed, we'll make a change. Ezc 195 (talk) 02:47, 8 August 2008(UTC)

I feel the teams themselves are pushing for that recognition, though, so I've been editing for the khl and clubs in mind vs. the iihf. (though not as far as the guy who changed ak bars to aq bars...). im not sure the official wiki standard on this, but for example, an autonomous province seems to get said recognition, like with Vojvodina within Serbia....and Quebec may be a province with some quirks but its hardly autonomous; if they were the Bloc party would be having a field day with that as a buzz word, lol.User:Lvivske

I have no problem with the republics getting recognition (I'm sure if I lived there I would want it too). If we leave the republics in the article, I think we should add a sentence making it clear that these two repulics are regions within the Russian Federation (since I'm sure 99% of North Americans and even most Europeans are not familiar with the republics). I'll even throw out the option of using two flags for the teams (the republican and Russian Federation flags), since the republics are considered part of the Russian Federation. As the KHL season approaches, I think more average North American fans will check out the article, so I just want to make it as simple as possible. Either way, I don't see this being a big deal. I added the sentence, let me know if it is acceptable. I think it is a nice compromise (two flags would be too messy IMO).

On another note, where are you from Lvivske? By your name I assume East European (I'm ethnic Croatian, born in Canada). If you are, can I hope for anymore updates from you as the season starts? I'm really interested in these new league, but sadly have yet to learn Cyrillic, so the website is of no use to me. To whoever has done most of the work so far, well done! Ezc 195 (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The sentence works for sure. I think if we mull this over a bit more there's a better solution, but for now I have no idea. Reading up on the whole South-Ossetian conflict in Georgia is really making me think this whole thing over. Anyway, I'm Ukrainian-Canadian. So far I did the Bobrov & Chernyshev division teams pages (minus Moscow Dynamo). At that point I decided to start work on a KHL site. Hopefully I get enough people on board for the news and updates; theres tons of english speaking KHL fans on the IHF forums who just post updates so if we can all oranize together I could have a very good resource in the making here. The url will be http://www.TheKHL.com, right now the contents all on my laptop, still working on the template. User:Lvivske —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's quite strange indeed to see Bashkirian flag instead of Russian one. It is overkill. I was born in Ufa and lived for 25 years there, and I'm sure most of people from Ufa will be unpleasantly surprised to see Bashkirian flag instead of Russian one here. We are truly proud to feel ourselves first being part of Russia, and then Bashkortostan of course. I argue for the consistence and for use of the flag of Russia for each russian club with no exceptions. Svmich (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Bashkortostan is not independent state. It is one of the subjects of the Russian Federation. It's constitution may not conflict with the Constitution of Russia. More, Bashkortostan President's candidate is proposed by the President of Russia, to be voted by the legislative branch of Bashkortostan, the same is true for any subject of the Federation. Svmich (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I hear ya, though this detail caught me by surprise "Article 1 of the Constitution stipulates that Bashkortostan is a sovereign state within Russia, it has all the state power in full volume beyond the limits of authority of the Russian Federation". That said I'm starting to lean towards scrapping this and just working the angle in a less confusing way when the site goes up. Ak Bars kind of put me off on this tangent in the first place though with the flags and coat of arms, etc. and they play both anthems before games as well.User:Lvivske —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The states of the USA have jurisdiction over everything not explicitly given the federal government by the US Constitution. In Canada things are a bit more complicated, but the provinces have a great deal of sovereignty over matters. For example, civil law is provincial, whereas the criminal law is federal. I knew learning all of this stuff in school would be useful some day.... Oh, in the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrardor it is very common to hear both O Canada and the Ode to Newfoundland before hockey games. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the discussion about the details of autonomy of provinces and repulics is, although quite interesting, not the point here. Using the flags of the autonomous republics implies that those are on the same level as russia, ukraine, latvia and belarus. I am against this parallel use of national flags next to flags of republics. Not for political, but for logical reasons. I am sure one can find another, more appropriate place to include those flags in the article. Wild8oar (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesnt put them on the same level, because they were clearly under a separate category in the infobox.[User:Lvivske]]

I agree with Wild8oar. Although they may have more individual autonomy than American states or Canadian provinces they're still a part of Russia. They do not hold the same position internationally as the Russian federal government or that of Belarus, Kazakhstan, or Latvia. I think the teams should use the Russian flag. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with both Wild8oar and JohnnyPolo24. Discussion of details of any particular federation, whether Russia, USA, Canada or else, is not the point here. Use of the national rather than the regional flags for all the KHL clubs is consistent and logical. 89.105.151.254 (talk) 06:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I simply brought it up to point out that they are pretty much no different than Canadian provinces. I apologize if it was a problem. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Consistent with North American sports leagues, inconsistent with European sports leagues. [User:Lvivske]]

Please see the leagues listed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ice_hockey_leagues#Europe I found none that had regional flags. Perhaps they did and were recently edited I don't know.Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Links...

The KHL website has an option for English translation, but I believe it is currently not working (at least for me). I suggest someone keep an eye on this feature on the KHL website, and when it is functioning correctly remove the option for google translation into English. -Tacitalibi 9/3/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.106.27 (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No move Parsecboy (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Kontinental Hockey League → Continental Hockey League — KHL isn't abbreviation. It's English transliteration for Russian acronym КХЛ(Континентальная хоккейная лига=Continental Hockey League), so true name of article is Continental Hockey League. Undoubtedly, it would be better to use CHL instead of KHL, but somebody in our(Russian) hockey federation wasn't clever enough — QZip (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)}

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Strong Oppose - Yarilo2 (talk) 03:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC) This was done so as not to confuse the Kontinental Hockey League and the Champions Hockey league. Also, it is standard English practice to transliterate abbreviations (for example, KGB isn't an abbreviation, it's a transliteration of an abbreviation, same for KHL. And if the KHL wanted to be known as the CHL, they would've registered their site under www.chl.ru, not www.khl.ru
• Support. Checked my newspaper today: it calls it the Continental Hockey League and abbreviates it KHL. This sounds reasonable: "Kontinental" is not an English word, but "hockey" and "league" are. Srnec (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Wild8oar (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC) The only reference I could find on the IIHF homepage (which we could consider as something like an authority) is with K: [1]. We could also wait for the english version of the official homepage and then consider that spelling as official. Are there any official press releases from the KHL in english?
• Strong Oppose and request for speedy close, the name has been chosen to disambiguate the league from the five other ice hockey competitions with the abbreviation CHL. --Krm500 (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose We do the same sort of listing for many other hockey leagues. It most articles I have seen, they use a K for the full name. -Djsasso (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose There are many more google hits for Continental than Kontinental, but it appears that the K variant is most prevalent in Europe (i.e.: with the IIHF itself, and Eurohockey.net) while the C variant is prevalent in North America (i.e. CBC, TSN). Given this is a European league, I believe we should defer to the European spelling. Resolute 14:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose While Continental Hockey League may be the "correct" translation and transliteration I believe Kontinental Hockey League has been chosen as the most suitable by the vast majority of English speakers for the sake of disambiguating between other leagues which have in the past called themselves Continental Hockey League. A quick google search shows that TSN (The Sports Network), The Sporting News, NBC and Fox each call it Kontinental. A greater search would undoubtedly show even greater consensus. 93JC (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support — Correct transliteration is Continental. I think poor league branding has led to confusion among an ignorant North American press. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Is it so unlikely that the league also branded itself in english as the Kontinental Hockey League? We know for sure they use KHL. Why is it a stretch to believe they also use Kontinental Hockey League, especially when the IIHF, the governing body also uses that spelling? -Djsasso (talk) 05:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - majority of English language press, including AP, Washington Post, Globe & Mail, uses this spelling. IIHF uses both spellings equally. WP:ENGVAR is a red herring; there is no regional usage in English of the spelling "kontinental", and in any case there's very little interest in Russian hockey, or hockey in general, anywhere in the English speaking world except in the US and Canada. What we "believe" they may hypothetically be using as branding sounds a lot like OR to me; as far as I can tell by actually looking for such branding they're not branding themselves in English at all, nor should they be expected to. Their audience is European and overwhelmingly Russian-speaking. Geoffrey Spear (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment They are branding them self in english, just look at their website — Though it is incomplete so the link doesn't work yet. Their international logo also use Kontinental, more proof needed? --Krm500 (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, in Latvian, the official language of Latvia, the home country of one of the league's teams Dinamo Rīga, the league's name is Kontinentālā Hokeja Līga. Altough it's weird for me, that the home arena of Dinamo uses stickers on the boards with the English and Russian naming of the league. Also, if the league is about to expand in Sweden and the Czech Republic (most likely), in Swedish and Czech, by my thoughts, the name is also Kontinental.

But actually, I myself am just enjoying the hockey games and not caring about the name. --Ivario (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Which one is the most common use in English language? We need to remember that we are not here to dictate on what is or not correct English spelling. "Kontinental" may well be a deliberate choice used for marketing purposes (and so to match the acronym letters). Regards, --Asterion^talk 12:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Google searches back up my vote. It's Continental Hockey League (KHL). Srnec (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If the article is renamed, a hat note should be added saying "Not to be confused with the former Continental Hockey League (1972–1987), which became All-American Hockey League" or similar to that effect. --Asterion^talk 23:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The official name is with K, this should not be an issue. --Krm500 (talk) 10:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

In response to Yarilo2: We are discussing renaming the full article, not the acronym. The K in the acronym was intentionally selected for branding purposes (I can't remember where I read this), and to avoid confusion with the many existing CHL hockey leagues, such as the Canadian Hockey League. The acronym chosen by the league should have no bearing on the full league name. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If you do a google search for "Continental Hockey league" and "Kontinental Hockey League" (in quotes), the K-variant wins out by about a thousand results. So Google supports keeping it here as Kontinental.Yarilo2 (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Google reveals 88,000 hits for 'Russia "Continental Hockey league" -wikipedia' and 11,000 hits for Russia "Kontinental Hockey league" -wikipedia'. I add "Russia" to avoid non-Russian leages with the same name and "-wikipeida" to avoid this site and mirrors. Clearly the "c" spelling is preferred, though KHL is the abbreviation. Srnec (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but it is spelled with K, and google hits are irrelevant, the league has chosen this as their official international name, the IIHF use K and almost all notable english language newspapers do (as do every other country where hockey is a big sport...) --Krm500 (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't be sorry, be sourced. Srnec (talk) 01:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's be sourced. And then close this discussion:

Source	Spelling	Ref
IIHF	Kontinental	[2]
TSN	Kontinental	[3]
ESPN	Kontinental	[4]
NY Times	Kontinental	[5]
NHL	Kontinental	[6]

Feel free to add more examples. For me this is enough. Wild8oar (talk) 08:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times link is to a blogger; they've got an AP wire story in there today with the C spelling. In fact, the vast majority of stories on Radulov today use that spelling. "Kontinental hockey" in Google News, 76 results. "Continental hockey", 391 results. Sure, any AP story will be multiplied in those results because they're picked up by so many news outlets, but doesn't that fact itself help to establish them as being seen as a reliable source? Geoffrey Spear (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

To my mind, this becomes akin to a WP:ENGVAR argument. The league itself and the sport's governing body spell it as Kontinental. That should be more than enough on its own. Resolute 16:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The league itself spells its name with Cyrillic letters. You'll note that while a letter that looks like a 'K' appears in their name, no 'H' or 'L' does. And the IIHF has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with professional hockey; they're the governing body for international play. Their supposed "use" of that spelling is restricted to a single news article, and look, I can find a news article on their site using the other spelling, in an article about the creation of the league no less: [7] Google Site Search shows 3 usages of each term, excluding duplicate pages. Hardly conclusive. Geoffrey Spear (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Notable Players"

Also, how should we manage the notable players section(s)? Just NHL alumni w/ Notable former players? Or what?--Lvivske (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

In general for any team, the hockey project doesn't use sections like "Notable Players" as a heading because its POV, technically all players who have played pro are notable by wiki standards so we use a specific fact driven section. For example on NHL teams we say Honoured members and they have to be in the hall of fame, there is no disputing they are in the hall etc. So for example of the two options you mention, only NHL alumni is NPOV. -Djsasso (talk) 00:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is POV to claim that any former NHL nobody is more notable than RSL all-stars. Bohdan80 (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

That isn't quite true, it just depends on what part of the world you live in. You live in North America you are going to know way more about an NHL nobody that you would about an RSL allstar. But regardless, the way mentioned down below avoids all this. -Djsasso (talk) 13:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

it just depends on what part of the world you live in: my point exactly. Of course people in NA know more about even marginal NHLers, but the article should not adopt these people's point of view more than any other. Bohdan80 (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Well thats my point as to why none should be listed because as has been pointed out before in "Notable Player" discussions every player that is elligable for an article on wikipedia is deemed notable. And for this reason is why we only list people that are members of halls of fame etc. -Djsasso (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest using Honoured members as Djsasso suggested, but maybe not using NHL as a merit. Do the teams have any players that are members of the Russian Hockey Hall of Fame or similar institution say like the IIHF Hall of fame? Jerseys retired and etc. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 01:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Some teams do have honored players (Dynamo Moscow), others do have HOF players and the like. I think you're right in that Alumni and officially honored make the most sense. In regard to POV, I'm seeing some totally out of whack names people are throwing in there; some fake (making a pain to clean up). --Lvivske (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

And that is pretty much the point I was making, when you just say Notable Players you get everyone adding their favourite players, by picking an actual award or honour to use as a list then people can't do that. -Djsasso (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link to the IIHF Hall of Fame, plenty of Russians there. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 14:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, here's the link for Soviet hockey hall of fame--Lvivske (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a style that should be followed, or one that is more aesthetic? --Lvivske (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Calgary Flames is a FA so it might be a good one to look at. Basically we try to do it in prose as opposed to just listing. -Djsasso (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Roster Format

Is anyone willing to help update the team rosters for the Bobrov & Chernyshev divisions? I'm going to be moving on to finish what I started with the remaining 2 but hate to leave things incomplete.

Teams needed: Ak Bars (up to date?), Barys (up to date?), Vityaz, Neftekhimik, Dynamo Moscow (format), Atlant (format, up to date?), Severstal, Novokuznetsk, Minsk (up to date?)

More importantly: How should we make the team rosters uniform? I see different users are going with different styles. Personally, I like the NHL page format the best (ie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:New_York_Rangers_roster). Opinions?--Lvivske (talk) 06:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing some new rosters pop up in the NHL style...is that what we're going with? 0nly problem I see so far is that the articles are so small that you have to scroll through a blank page to get to them--Lvivske (talk) 10:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That would probably be an issue with how your computer is set up. Eventually the rosters we have on NHL pages will spread to all hockey teams. It just takes awhile for the changes to spread. -Djsasso (talk) 11:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Team map

Someone should make a map of where all the teams are based, like in the NHL article. --Pwnage8 (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm planning on making one, as soon as I can get a vector image of the proper map...--Lvivske (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the league is looking to expand it would be a good idea to use a labelled map. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 22:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, figure color code the countries and darken the provinces that have teams; everything labeled--Lvivske (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I started. Wish me luck! (LAz17 (talk) 04:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)).

I don't want to crap on something someone put effort into, but this seems to be a particularly bad problem on wiki. Everyone uses Miami Vice pastel freaking colors for fill. These are extremely hard to visualize and anyone color blind stands ZERO chance of making out the shades. Having chosen these pastels, rather than moving the extremely close shades of light blue as far from each other as possible, they are placed next to each other. Any reason the orange and pink couldn't intervene between them allowing the eye to contrast the fact they are actually two different shades? Please, please use BOLD colors for fill. Avoid if possible mixing red and green due to color blindness, but if they do need to be used on the same figure, place them as far apart as possible so the color blind have a chance to distinguish that they mean something different. In the map in this article, black for the currently darker blue, R34 G177 B76 green for the light blue division, R0 G183 G239 cyan for the far west, and R47 G54 B153 blue for the other. You will notice with such bold fill that the white borders also stand out, including the small city-sized enclave in one of the potitical divisions which currently, is completely invisible because of the current poor color choices. If black is a problem, and white text can't be used to make the writing visible over it, choose a bright bold orange, or brown or something. This shouldn't be so hard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.4.118 (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

How about we make a braille map for the blind too? It's uniform and in line with all the other major league maps, I think that was the goal.--Львівске (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Team names

Just wondering what the proper way to go about this would be. Transliterating and keeping the names in Russian syntax, or as the North American new has been reporting (I.e. Moscow Dynamo, Mytischi Atlant, etc), under the NA/English form of City>Club-name

which would be correct? example:
1. Metallurg Magnitogorsk (Transliteration as-is)
2. Magnitogorsk Metallurg (English transliteration and syntax adjustment)
3. Magnitogorsk Steelers (English translation)
--Lvivske (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Going off what I see in papers, etc, option 1 seems to be the common name in English. i.e.: there are 122,000 google hits for "Metallurg Magnitogorsk" vs. 5380 when you adjust the syntax. "Dynamo Moscow" returns about 278,000 hits as opposed to 45,000 for "Moscow Dynamo". I expect most other teams would be the same. Resolute

Yeah, I figure this is mostly because of translation programs leaving things as-is. I think with the new exposure the KHL is getting, we're going to see more conflicts between the current standard and what the western media chooses to do....that said, the football standard would be option 1, and that's what the Champions League is doing too on their website; so we're safe for now :-) --Lvivske (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

TSN and Sportsnet have been referring to Dynamo as "Moscow Dynamo" all tournament long link --Lvivske (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Regular season trophy?

The Gagarin Cup holds the same position as the Stanley Cup in the NHL - it is awarded to the playoffs winner. However - is there a trophy similar to the Presidents' Trophy - a trophy awarded to the regular season winner (this season it would mean to Ufa)? I have been searching but couldn't find anything. IJK_Principle (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I only know of the Gagarin and Cherepanov trophies. Everything else, the details are cloudy. Hopefully they announce something soon with the reg. season over.--Lvivske (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The season ended yesterday and the playoffs start on Sunday. Ufa however has ensured it's first place in the regular season half a month ago or so. The Russian article also talks about a so called "Opening Cup" played at the beggining of the season between the last champion and runner-up. No info on the regular season winner's trophy though. --IJK_Principle (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think they got the Opening Cup info off this English page, I know I had it on here at one point...but yes, it's correct, an OC should happen next season to kick things off, but no info on if its just an exhibition game or a real event--Lvivske (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is some source... KHL to focus on regular season-League winner will become Russian champion-23-04-09 http://www.iihf.com/channels/iihf-world-championship-oc09/home/news/news-singleview-world-championship-2009/article/khl-to-focus-on-regular-season.html?tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=2717&cHash=26b37a2d6a (LAz17 (talk) 04:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)).

Just like how in the soviet days the reg. season winner was "Champion of Russia" but the playoffs were for the "USSR Cup"....wacky--Lvivske (talk) 06:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Was there not two leagues? The Russian Super League (just for Russia) and USSR Championship (for all of the USSR)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.158.212 (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

There was Soviet/CIS, IHL, and Russian Hockey/Super League--Lvivske (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Guys, should we keep this newly reborn "Champion of Russia" title as a continuation of the original Soviet-era title? Should such a list need its own article? If so, I think it should mirror the Presidents Trophy article--Lvivske (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

swedish league stuff

Herea re a few links about the swedish league teams and their issues there... http://communities.canada.com/edmontonjournal/blogs/hockey/archive/2009/04/30/five-elite-swedish-teams-make-plans-to-join-khl.aspx http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fhd.se%2Fsport%2F2009%2F04%2F29%2Fbraaket-som-splittrar-hockey%2F&sl=sv&tl=en&history_state0= http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fhd.se%2Fsport%2F2009%2F04%2F29%2Fbraaket-som-splittrar-hockey%2F&sl=sv&tl=en&history_state0=

Not sure if it helps, meh. (LAz17 (talk) 04:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)).

Table too wide

The table of teams contains much information, but that also makes it too wide. On my screen, far more than half of the teams wrap over into two lines, which makes it look messy and also in turn makes the table so high it doesn't fit on one screen, which is disturbing. I don't exactly know how to solve this, but I note that National Hockey League#Teams fits much neater onto my screen (unless I turn on side panels). (I'm on 1280x1024, by the way, so it's not really a stone-age technology problem—although I'm sure people with widescreen displays don't have it at all.) —JAO • T • C 21:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

maybe delete the coaches column? I find captains to be more relevant to a team's image than the revolving door that is the head coaches job --Lvivske (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd nominate the "Joined" column for deletion - all the teams have joined in 2008, the few additions over the next few years can be written about in text form. It's pretty much redundant at this point.Yarilo2 (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of changing "joined" to illustrate when the team ascended to the top level of hockey in russia (and maintain the league continuation from the RSL and USSR). --Lvivske (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that I look at it, I think capacity is the least necessary for the chart. Chop it? --Lvivske (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Rules, Hockey rink, and Game sections

any leads on how we should do these sections? Seems rather relevant--Lvivske (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Map

The lack of international boundaries on the map of the teams locations, yet the inclusion of Russian internal divisions, is inappropriate, imperious, and arrogant. It should be made clear, especially since the internal divisions of Latvia, Belarus and Kazakhstan are not displayed, that they are sovereign and independent nations, NOT subdivisions of Russia as they appear. Slaja (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Quit inferring things that blatantly arent there.--Львівське (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

active players by nation

can this chart be adjusted to be like the NHL article's chart, that is, to go by origin of the player and not the nation? I think it'd be good to match the NHL article, plus show where players are from vs. those who changed citizenship as a career move.--Львівське (talk) 03:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean birthplace vs. nationality/citizenship? The info is all taken from the KHL and the individual teams websites, I just counted up the nationalities. Slaja (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean birthplace, like the NHL table.--Львівське (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually assumed that is how you were doing it since that seems to be the standard. -DJSasso (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Nah, he copied the listing that was posted on IHForums, which IMO those guys aren't always accurate. --Львівське (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Can I see your source, you should (*must) list it. Slaja (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to my source for my changes to Ukrainian origin players, I've added a sub article on the topic and each player is verifiable. --Львівське (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

wildboar, you kick ass!

http://forums.internationalhockey.net/showthread.php?t=9349

Great collection of all-time KHL stats by wikiproject member wildboar. Where should this kinda stuff go on here?--Львівське (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Lvivske. I was also wondering, if and where we could put those stats. I am currently quite busy, so I will not be active on this for now. But I can offer to make data available as wikitables, so you won't have to convert it by hand. Wild8oar (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm booked solid till the end of the month so looks like this will be put off, but its still a great collection of info. I guess copy whatever the NHL articles do to handle these kinda stats.--Львівське (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Drawbacks of the championship format

Conference play-offs and their decisive meaning for the final standings prevent the strongest teams from taking top positions in these standings, when the teams are from the same conference. I consider this drawback at least noteworthy. Some hints for this include highest possible [allowed by the current rules] positions after 2009/10 by teams from the East among the KHL top eight, and also MHL (KHL hockey schools) 2009/10 play-off results: after paired East-West series (the first round of the play-offs), teams from the West were entirely eliminated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.78.225.84 (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I really think this is issue is very minor, if one at all. I added a sentence that mentions it to the Format section, but a new section just about this is massively disproportionate. Also, you would definitely need to find a reference that backs it up. As long it is just your opinion, it doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. Wild8oar (talk) 08:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wild8oar, I do appreciate your fruitful activity, really. But what do you mean by 'minor' about the issue? The outcome of 2009/10, when some clubs finished in worse ranks just because it is their conference where the strongest clubs of the league play? E.g. Salavat Yulaev finished 3rd, not 2nd. It clearly matters. Yes, I read your note in 'Format' and am sure it was not enough. The original text is merely a subsection of 'Season structure' section. Btw., what do you consider to be my opinion here? I do think radical cutting the contents of this subsection is inadequate. Why is this disproportionate and what exactly do you mean should have a reference? I welcome any efforts to make this wording somewhat more brief, but without sacrificing the substance. And finally, it's OK when an issue is considered minor by someone and not minor by others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.78.196.226 (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear anonymous user. I am sorry for radically deleting your section, but look, there are a few problems with it: 1) it is overly long. It is clearly enough to say that the seeding based on conference standings is slightly unfair. Everyone understands that, there is no need to give examples from other leagues. 2) the problem itself is very minor and in North America (or also in the FIFA World Cup), such seeding procedures are completely normal. And even with a very ridiculous seeding procedure, the best team would still emerge as the winner. And to be honest, only the winner counts, nobody cares if Ufa is 2nd or 3rd. 3) if you believe that the issue is really important then you should find an authoritative source (e.g. a newspaper article with statements from officials) that back your opinion. Wikipedia is not the right place to make your opinion known. Does this make my point clear? Wild8oar (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well... somewhat. I believe that 'Season structure' section will grow to become more detailed before the start of 2010/11 season (may be when all the official documents become available, perhaps in both languages), and probably then 'Criticism' will not appear 'overly long'. Probably some brief note would fit, but I think it should explain what makes it unfair. I mentioned the MHL because it's closely related to the KHL, being the league for 'grassroots' of the KHL clubs, having impact on the KHL clubs strength, as their hockey schools. I'm not sure about North America, but FIFA World Cup looks quite fair here: stronger confederations are represented wider at the WC (e.g. UEFA was represented by 13 teams this year). Yes, the best would still become the winner, but not only the winner counts, otherwise the final ranking wouldn't exist at all. And why do you feel it is necessary to provide an authoritative source, when the explanation itself is put in the text? Frankly... is the reason to include this text in a separate subsection really disputable? (Now I tried to make it slightly shorter (not saved), but I don't know how to sharply reduce it, keeping the substance.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.78.196.226 (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Everything on wikipedia requires that an authoritative source has written about it. Basically we need reliable sources that have talked about the fact that it is unfair. Otherwise what you are doing is adding your own point of view. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:RS to see explainations of both. -DJSasso (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You're almost right. But there are well known, well understood matters, not requiring an authoritative source (e.g. to prove that 2*2 equals 4) - btw., user Wild8oar agrees here ('everyone understands that [it is unfair]'). Have you read the text being discussed? Is that explanation not enough to consider the play-off format unfair at this point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.78.196.226 (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If you add one sentence under Format that is concise and undisputable (e.g. "Although this play-off format greatly reduces travel distances, it can lead to unfair play-off pairings, in particular if the two conferences are not well balanced."), then probably nobody will object. However, if you mean to make the largest section of the article about this "criticism", you definitely need good references that prove that this is indeed such an important and much discussed topic (which it is not). Wild8oar (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Wild8oar, not exactly. It does not ensure strength of the teams to be properly reflected by the final standings. And of course we talk about strength across the entire league, without any predefined conference quotas in the league top 2, top 4, top 8 and top 16, ensured by the current format. I'm not sure we can talk about any balance of strength between the conferences, since the conferences simply divide the league geographically into equal number of teams. 91.79.30.173 (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, 91.79.30.173! This makes sense and I think has now the appropriate weight inside the article.

Wild8oar, please let a reader decide on what is relevant and what is not, ok? The statement you've just reverted does indicate impact on playoff pairing and on home ice advantage. I'm sure it is well placed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.67.177.50 (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

KHL Junior Draft

Do someone have more information pertaining to the KHL Junior Draft, i.e. drafting order? I know that there is a lottery between non-playoff teams but that's about it. And also, who is eligible for the draft. --Xiaoshan Math (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

KHL Junior Draft request

See Talk:KHL Junior Draft#Drafting order? for a request to add information pertaining to the KHL drafting order. HeyMid (contribs) 21:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Poprad on Map

Is the person that made the map with the teams still around? Can you (or somebody else) please add Slovakia and Poprad to it? Nice map, btw. Wild8oar (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Disaster draft?

Disaster draft might be updated to contain whatever procedure the KHL comes up with to handle toe Yaroslavl situation, along with this article. 76.65.129.5 (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

So far I have not seen any official announcement of what they are going to do, also not if there will even be a "disaster draft" or if the other teams just loan players. 09:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Unreadable map

I can't see the league map in any browser on my computer, as the shades are way too light. I've tried chrome and firefox, and I just can't make out the borders. The team names are fine, though. 72.2.54.34 (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

this has nothing to do with your browser. fix your monitor.--Львівське (talk) 05:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

All-time team records

Seems that the table should not list regular season standings, but final [championship] standings instead, and use more distinct colors for the cells [or stop using colors at all]. Any opinions are welcome. 217.67.177.50 (talk) 07:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

players

I have returned the players by nationalities by years. There is absolutely no reason to delete that, and I see that as vandalism. At any rate, the stuff was sourced and makes a more complete article. (LAz17 (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)).

I agree. Just one thing: the quanthockey stats for "all players" don't include the goalies. So you have to switch to the goalies tab and add those numbers as well. Wild8oar (talk) 06:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

KHL presents plan with 64 teams

[8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.87.132.225 (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

New logo

• The official website of the KHL, a new version of the logo. Please update. www.khl.ru/logo Serega2363 19:02, 12 июля 2012 (UTC)