# Why isn't Hockey big in Britain or France?



## Carlzner

This is something i've wondered for years. 
Hockey is very popular in other regions of Europe, even Germany (i traveled to Germany and Austria for 2 weeks and Hockey was surprisingly a lot bigger than i thought it would be)

The obvious answer to me was Football/Soccer, but it's also big in other European countries, including those that Hockey is big in.

Anyone have answers? just always been curious.


----------



## Siamese Dream

Braden Carlzner said:


> This is something i've wondered for years.
> Hockey is very popular in other regions of Europe, even Germany (i traveled to Germany and Austria for 2 weeks and Hockey was surprisingly a lot bigger than i thought it would be)
> 
> The obvious answer to me was Football/Soccer, but it's also big in other European countries, including those that Hockey is big in.
> 
> Anyone have answers? just always been curious.




Not enough indoor rinks. It's not cold enough for outdoor rinks.


----------



## Sunking278

It's too rough and tumble for the Brits and French to play, and I say that only half in jest. Germans, Russians & other various Slavs, they take to it like fish out of water. It's a North American and Central/Eastern European game, that's just the way that it is.


----------



## Siamese Dream

Sunking278 said:


> It's too rough and tumble for the Brits and French to play, and I say that only half in jest. Germans, Russians & other various Slavs, they take to it like fish out of water. It's a North American and Central/Eastern European game, that's just the way that it is.




Take your condescending generalisations somewhere else. Britain and France are both big on Rugby, is that not a rough and tumble sport?


----------



## torero

99 Problems said:


> Take your condescending generalisations somewhere else. Britain and France are both big on Rugby, is that not a rough and tumble sport?




Exactly !

I just introduced a friend coming from West of France to hockey ... which he saw on TV but ... he didn't see the puck , nobody knows the rules ... no quality camera man ... they don't appreciate ... and can see it like 3 minutes every month ... and from time to time a hockey game on Eurosport (which is not the same than Eurosport Scandinavia where you get tons of hockey)

After having seen a NLA game here in Geneva he was very enthusiastic about it ... he found more entertaining than soccer and would definitely watch games if he had the opportunity in France.

I believe that it is cultural ... then no media support (medias spending to make clients not to promote new sports !) ... it is a virtuous/viciuous circle. It takes circumstances.

I repeated the story of my city many times on this board ... : Geneva (350'000 hab) was a soccer team ... their was a hockey team but in 1st regional league ... someone came ... financed ... (group amstutz) ... brought it up to LNB ... it wasn't satisfying so Amstutz withdraw ... it was almost finished ... then the soccer club went bankrupt ... They had to get rid of their players ... starting again in regional division 1 ... so many supporters of the soccer team started to watch hockey ... and the Geneva Eagles landed in LNA ... with decent success. ... some years later hockey rinks started mushrooming in the region as well as hockey teams ... juniors ... . It became a city with soccer AND hockey. 

But Switzerland already has a very good league (equivalent to Sweden or Finland, slightly inferior to KHL) ... and medias broadly support hockey .. therefore the transformation of Geneva was "easy"!!


----------



## MorrisWanchuk

for those that did not know, hockey originated in Canada as a version of Rugby on ice (no forward passes was one of the original rules). 

hockey is directly comparable to rugby - Britain & France have a long rugby tradition.

The correct answer is given by 99probs above. not enough indoor rinks. not cold enough for outdoors skating.


----------



## HabsByTheBay

Sunking278 said:


> It's too rough and tumble for the Brits and French to play, and I say that only half in jest. Germans, Russians & other various Slavs, they take to it like fish out of water. It's a North American and Central/Eastern European game, that's just the way that it is.



I'll be happy to continue the pile on but..

You have never watched a rugby game in your life, have you?

Even in rugby the British countries and the French have a reputation as tough, physical players, especially the French.

It's your types I giggle about when I hear Americans describe the French as soft. Never seen a French rugby game, I guess.


----------



## LiveeviL

99 Problems said:


> Not enough indoor rinks. It's not cold enough for outdoor rinks.




Yes, you need the infrastructure. The same goes with Norway, which could be as Finland and Sweden, but they do not have the infrastructure rink-wise (and a weak hockey tradition, which leads to few rinks, etc).


----------



## Gwyddbwyll

Im not sure but I think Britain has rinks, its not that different to other small hockey nations, its just that the ice-time for hockey is severely limited and it is not played in schools *at all*. Even ice-skating is not accessible through schools - very much perceived as a marginalised 'hobby'.

I'm a big sports fan and had the opportunity to play a lot of different sports growing up. I got to ice-skate about 5 times in 10 years and absolutely no chance to play hockey.


----------



## Siamese Dream

Gwyddbwyll said:


> Im not sure but I think Britain has rinks, its not that different to other small hockey nations, its just that the ice-time for hockey is severely limited and it is not played in schools *at all*. Even ice-skating is not accessible through schools - very much perceived as a marginalised 'hobby'.
> 
> I'm a big sports fan and had the opportunity to play a lot of different sports growing up. I got to ice-skate about 5 times in 10 years and absolutely no chance to play hockey.




It depends where you live, when I lived in Wales I was 50 miles away from the rink in Cardiff. Now in Swindon I'm 300 yards from the rink .


----------



## torero

Not to be egocentric, but i will again speak about Switzerland because we have all this. Meaning not low enough temperatures to have hockey develop like soccer.

But ... we have mountains, where in altitude, you have snow in winter (natural ice) ... therefore this is where hockey comes from ... then it developped in the lowlands (cities) ... Bern, Zurich ... Geneva ... Basel not yet because soccer is very strong their (and Swiss cities are very small). 

+++

To say that it is spectacular and interesting ....and all things included it would be gaining ground over soccer or other sports due to its spectacular nature ... but it takes a lot of momentum to turn crowds into fans ! to feed a passion, that creates the movement, the infrastructures, the monies, the teams for young players ... . It is a heavy dynamic that is created with difficulty.


----------



## alko

Interesting fact is, that Great Britain won gold on the World Championships in 1936 (actually Olympic games), won silver in years 1937, 1938 and won bronze in years 1924 and 1937. So, the tradition should be there. 
But nobody know, when the passion for ice hockey died in Great Britain.


----------



## Alpine

France and Italy are in the top group of the WC this year despite most of their top players being poached to play for Swiss and German leagues.
I'll reverse this question.
When will soccer make that big break through in Canada even though CSA has 300,000 more registered players than Hockey Canada. Yeah the 3 MLS teams get some TV coverage.....but compared to hockey.......
You never see Rugby or Cricket on Canadian TV unless it's on a special digital channel next to the toe nail clipping channel.
When BBC.co.uk site puts hockey on it's main sports page you'll know there's been a break through like rugby or soccer on the CBC.ca site.
It is what it is trudge on


----------



## Siamese Dream

alko said:


> Interesting fact is, that Great Britain won gold on the World Championships in 1936 (actually Olympic games), won silver in years 1937, 1938 and won bronze in years 1924 and 1937. So, the tradition should be there.
> But nobody know, when the passion for ice hockey died in Great Britain.




Most of the team were Canadians who were born in Britain, then returned home to Britain to play pro hockey.

Passion for hockey died at the turn of the century. In the 90's fans flocked in their thousands to watch games, Manchester Storm set a European attendance record in 1997 when over 17,000 people packed into the MEN arena for a game against Sheffield Steelers.


----------



## HabsByTheBay

It's rinks as always.

There's not enough large rinks to hold professional hockey, and not enough small rinks for people to play on.

Plus equipment is ludicrously expensive here, enough to really price people out of playing and there's not much of a second-hand market for the budget player. If you look at British games, they're all pretty cheap to play. So you have to be one of the fully converted just to get on the ice.


----------



## WakeUpNHL

*Beer and Wine*

Hard to stand on your skates when your always drunk on pints or vino!


----------



## Narked

I belive its a mixture of lack of rinks. Very little main stream Exposure to the sport as to alot of people is considered a American/Canadian thing. As HabsbytheBay said hockey gear is hard to get a hold of in some citys and because of that expensive. I rememeber getting a free hockey trial when i was in school, really enjoyed it when i went to the shop to price stuff up it was an automatic " My folks arent going to spend that much".. Compaired to a pair of Boots and a gumshield for rugby it was crazy.. Im trying to get in to hockey now, but before you can go to the "hockey for all" in my city you need a minimum of Helmet,Groin,Gloves and a stick. thats a hundred or so there before you start..


----------



## AlanHUK

HabsByTheBay said:


> *Plus equipment is ludicrously expensive here*, enough to really price people out of playing and there's not much of a second-hand market for the budget player.




I've done well with my equipment, had to buy it over the course of a year since that outlay in one go was a non starter, but got it all now, and a lot of it came from abroad.

Skates - purchased at a Canadian Tire, back when the exchange rate was Â£1=$2, cost Â£60
Gloves - sized up locally then went on ebay, new gloves for Â£50 inc shipping and taxes.
Got knee and elbow pads (supreme one90s) fo Â£60 combined on ebay including shipping and taxes.
Helmet & Chest/Shoulder pads and a basic stick, I got new from the Ice Arena in Nottingham, think it cost me Â£110 in total.
Shorts/Pants, socks, bag, composite stick, 2 rolls of stick tape and a roll of sock tape for around Â£120, shorts were 2nd hand.
Picked up warrior long pant 'nut hut' in a sale a website was having for around Â£25inc postage.

so it cost me around Â£430 to get kit, obviously I could have got more stuff 2nd hand, but my original timeline to start playing was last summer so I didn't expect to have as much time to shop around, then I got made redundant, had to wait until now to get started.

I think as an 'adult' you could probably get full kit for around Â£300-350 if you shop around.

Also I was planning on getting a few more sticks from Canada, but the guy I was going to buy off decided to quote $350 shipping for a pair of sticks.


----------



## n3ss

Many people from the UK and Australia seem to have a very negative view on hockey due to the helmet and other protective gear. They liken it to (american) football, which generally has the same amount of hate. I don't think many of them actually realize the speed and intensity the game is played at compared to soccer and rugby....


----------



## vsk92

I tried to introduce my Scottish friends to hockey but all they like is the fighting


----------



## smitty10

n3ss said:


> Many people from the UK and Australia seem to have a very negative view on hockey due to the helmet and other protective gear. They liken it to (american) football, which generally has the same amount of hate. I don't think many of them actually realize the speed and intensity the game is played at compared to soccer and rugby....




I have found this to be the same reason that South Africans aren't more into hockey. Although, when I was there last the WJC Div 3 was being held in Cape Town and there seemed to be a good buzz.


----------



## Siamese Dream

n3ss said:


> Many people from the UK and Australia seem to have a very negative view on hockey due to the helmet and other protective gear. They liken it to (american) football, which generally has the same amount of hate. I don't think many of them actually realize the speed and intensity the game is played at compared to soccer and rugby....




American football isn't hated in the UK at all, when the superbowl is on everyone suddenly becomes a massive fan. The biggest problem in the UK and Australia is a lot of people have never actually heard of hockey, and everyone loves football (soccer or Aussie rules)


----------



## AlanHUK

99 Problems said:


> American football isn't hated in the UK at all, when the superbowl is on everyone suddenly becomes a massive fan. The biggest problem in the UK and Australia is a lot of people have never actually heard of hockey, and everyone loves football (soccer or Aussie rules)




depends where in the UK you are, there are more of my friends and even people I know through others who consider 'football' to be rugby for ******* than there are who actually like it.


----------



## Siamese Dream

AlanHUK said:


> depends where in the UK you are, there are more of my friends and even people I know through others who consider 'football' to be rugby for ******* than there are who actually like it.




Probably a generation gap, during the superbowl this year the whole of my facebook friends list (400+ and from different areas of the country) were suddenly massive NFL fans.


----------



## 3 Minute Minor

99 Problems said:


> Probably a generation gap, during the superbowl this year the whole of my facebook friends list (400+ and from different areas of the country) were suddenly massive NFL fans.




Similar in Canada. We have tons of die hard NFL fans but I remember parents and kids being pissed when we had hockey on Super Bowl Sunday...


----------



## Siamese Dream

Adam Thilander said:


> Similar in Canada. We have tons of die hard NFL fans but I remember parents and kids being pissed when we had hockey on Super Bowl Sunday...




I was actually being sarcastic about everyone being "massive fans" because the superbowl is the only time they watch it and they post on facebook thinking they know everything 

But anyway, it still proves the NFL is not hated because everyone loves the superbowl.


----------



## 3 Minute Minor

99 Problems said:


> I was actually being sarcastic about everyone being "massive fans" because the superbowl is the only time they watch it and they post on facebook thinking they know everything
> 
> But anyway, it still proves the NFL is not hated because everyone loves the superbowl.




That's what I mean, it's the same **** here and people think Superbowl > hockey. They won't watch any game the entire season... but the Superbowl?!!? Drop everything lol

Anything > Hockey in Canada is automatically strange


----------



## villevalo

99 Problems said:


> Probably a generation gap, during the superbowl this year the whole of my facebook friends list (400+ and from different areas of the country) were suddenly massive NFL fans.




It was funny as **** seeing people use NA sports terms like specialty teams etc on facebook then asking them what they thought it meant.

Also the NFL game in London only sells out for the spectacle of the occasion, a good 70/80% of people that go will just attend to say they did, they wont probably ever watch a NFL game until the Superbowl.


----------



## villevalo

To add why hockey isn't popular here, it doesn't help that our country has a particularly poor winter sport following too. Countries like Italy and France have hosted the winter Olympics, it simply couldn't happen here.


----------



## Galchenkel

I'll talk about the market I know that is France.

First you have to know that sports don't hold the news as they do in NA. There are only a few sport-only chanels with low budgets, few TV rights. Nothing to compare with the Sportsnet, TSN and RDS of Canada with half the population.

Sports in France have very few exposure. Even major soccer teams aren't that exposed. The TV rights are held by only a few so the exposure is very low. Some teams with top 5 budgets evolve in ridiculous stadiums where only passionates will come. Forget the game experience of the Bell Centre and the Yankee stadium where only getting in worth paying. 

So if this assessment is made of soccer, can you guess what kind of exposure hockey can get? Tony Parker was more known for dating Eva Longoria than for the NBA MVP that he is, people started to know who Sebastien Loeb was after his 6th consecutive WRC title, and Joakim Noah is the son of Yannick who plays basketball somewhere in the USA.

But I'm hopeful that things can change in the future with the arrival on june 1st of a major sports-only network of two, chanels beIn Sport 1 and 2, financed by Al Jazeera with strong ambitions.


----------



## Deleted member 93465

Alpine said:


> France and Italy are in the top group of the WC this year despite most of their top players being poached to play for Swiss and German leagues.
> I'll reverse this question.
> When will soccer make that big break through in Canada even though CSA has 300,000 more registered players than Hockey Canada. Yeah the 3 MLS teams get some TV coverage.....but compared to hockey.......




Socce has very little tradition in Canada, yet in the space of 5 years since its 3 pro clubs joined MLS they all averaging 20,000 (Montreal actually averaging 36,000 this first season but it will go down once they begin playing most games at their own stadium). 

Comparing soccer in Canada vs hockey in France/England/Italy will only make hockey look bad.


----------



## 3 Minute Minor

Soccer in Canada is booming. It's an easy sport to put money into because it's rather cheap.
My university's soccer team is ranked near the top of the CIS every year, some of the players have even represented their country at the World Cup. And yet, we don't even have a hockey team at our University...


----------



## Trevor3

Adam Thilander said:


> Soccer in Canada is booming. It's an easy sport to put money into because it's rather cheap.
> My university's soccer team is ranked near the top of the CIS every year, some of the players have even represented their country at the World Cup. And yet, we don't even have a hockey team at our University...




University hockey in Canada is not much a measure of anything. Most universities are in cities with CHL teams which are the main draw. CIS teams recruit players who have gone through the junior system and been passed over by the pros, so basically you are getting a relatively equal product without the selling point of seeing a future NHLer. There are always exceptions to the rule and some teams are well supported and hey, there was Joel Ward.

Soccer has always been a big sport among kids, not many of us didn't play soccer when we were in elementary school. Just compare it, $50 to register for soccer plus some cleats, shin guards and a pair of shorts. $250 for hockey plus hundreds in gear. The difference is that soccer is a summer sport and once kids get into high school they stop playing and get summer jobs and find other ways to pass the time. In the dead of winter there isn't much to do except play hockey and go curling.

Kids may be playing it in high numbers for sure, but they don't stick with it. It's not a really serious sport, most play it for fun as a pastime.


----------



## Summer Rose

n3ss said:


> Many people from the UK and Australia seem to have a very negative view on hockey due to the helmet and other protective gear. They liken it to (american) football, which generally has the same amount of hate. I don't think many of them actually realize the speed and intensity the game is played at compared to soccer and rugby....




Difference I consider between (American) football and ice hockey is that in hockey, a lot of the equipment you wear is to protect you against the solid rubber puck moving at 150+ km/h and the rock hard ice, not so much collisions with the other players like in football.


----------



## PuddlesTheDuck

villevalo said:


> It was funny as **** seeing people use NA sports terms like specialty teams etc on facebook then asking them what they thought it meant.
> 
> Also the NFL game in London only sells out for the spectacle of the occasion, a good 70/80% of people that go will just attend to say they did, they wont probably ever watch a NFL game until the Superbowl.




I'd put those numbers the other way round, I went to the Bucs-Pats game a couple of years ago and most of the people there had some kind of NFL jersey or apparel on and there was a lot of trash talking and stuff where I was sat.

Maybe about 20% or so are there for the occasion, but by now with it being an annual thing the NFL fans are the one's that get the tickets mostly.


----------



## BMann

The organizing body for hockey in the UK is a joke for a start.

As is the claim that we are not tough enough to play the sport. Play some rugby union and league.

There simply is no long term vision for growing the sport at the grass roots. 

It can be done as in other 'minority sports'. Track and road cycling, rowing, gymnastics, swimming have all shown the benefit of a identifying talent, increasing junior numbers, having more facilities ie pools and better focused coaching at all ages and hand in gand with it more funding from Sport GB and the Lottery.

As a result performances have picked up and they are now in the national consciousness and in turn attract more kids into the sport.

Ice hockey doesn't have any national exposure at all. Not even the NHL. At least the NFL is there in the public's mind although the sport will always remain a very minority sport here in player numbers, people are aware of the sport through coverage on the BBC.

Domestic hockey used to be broadcast on the BBC. Nowadays it is shunted into the wilds of Sky. Ditto for the NHL on ESPN UK.

If there was more coverage on terrestrial channels it would help. As it is the hockey public is confined to the old heartlands. Many major connurbations don't even have a team ie Liverpool or until very recently like Bristol.

The League structure, import rules, clubs losing rinks, relocating sides needlessly ie Durham Wasps, the lack of rinks, the cost of equipment are just part of the myriad of factors that have stunted the sport's development.

Without any sucess Sport GB is reluctant to invest. 

And without sucess no parent is going to tell their kid that hockey is a potential career going forward. Association football, rugby, cricket all pay well now and other sports like those I mentioned are seeing a rapid rise in junior numbers.

Hockey could suceed in Britain as it has in Denmark or improved in Hungary.

What we need is a body not formed on selfish interests but one that has a plan for the sport and is willing to take the time to build from the bottom up.

Firstly more rinks. Subsidised equipment through lottery grants or something along those lines, better coaches brought in from abroad (while having our own learn from them)to identify talent and as with any sport national academies or centres of excellence within a focused national program that works with clubs not against them.

And better media visibility.


----------



## Alpine

If Prince Charles can play street hockey.....badly............
There's hope


----------



## OthmarAmmann

99 Problems said:


> I was actually being sarcastic about everyone being "massive fans" because the superbowl is the only time they watch it and they post on facebook thinking they know everything
> 
> But anyway, it still proves the NFL is not hated because everyone loves the superbowl.




I know it's not the U.K. but I was in Dublin in November a few years ago and I was surprised that the locals I was with were all talking about the NFL regular season and had fantasy teams. They were all financial professionals and had all spent a little while living in New York though.



Adam Thilander said:


> Soccer in Canada is booming. It's an easy sport to put money into because it's rather cheap.
> My university's soccer team is ranked near the top of the CIS every year, some of the players have even represented their country at the World Cup. And yet, we don't even have a hockey team at our University...




I believe it will continue to grow as the country depends more on immigration for population growth now than it has in the past.


----------



## clatchie

takharov said:


> The organizing body for hockey in the UK is a joke for a start.



About time somebody said this. British ice hockey, on the whole, severely lacks professionalism and this includes the EIHL. I'm glad they've changed the format to two conferences of five teams, even if Belfast having to travel down south and splitting Yorkshire teams Hull and Sheffield is confusing. 

I don't know about the development of the sport player-wise, but the fanbase could be improved easily. More mid-week games, face-off times in the afternoon instead of the evening (hey, my 18-26 year old friends would rather get drunk) and maybe even more mid-week games would boost attendance in my humble opinion. Definitely make it easier for me to get to the games without juggling shift work.


----------



## Siamese Dream

clatchie said:


> About time somebody said this. British ice hockey, on the whole, severely lacks professionalism and this includes the EIHL. I'm glad they've changed the format to two conferences of five teams, even if Belfast having to travel down south and splitting Yorkshire teams Hull and Sheffield is confusing.
> 
> I don't know about the development of the sport player-wise, but the fanbase could be improved easily. More mid-week games, face-off times in the afternoon instead of the evening (hey, my 18-26 year old friends would rather get drunk) and maybe even more mid-week games would boost attendance in my humble opinion. Definitely make it easier for me to get to the games without juggling shift work.




Improving attendance will not make a difference, some teams already get better attendances than teams in the KHL. Junior player development and cost of playing is the problem.


----------



## clatchie

heh, I often view problems with an eye towards my own club's problems too much. Improved development would be nice, but I get the feeling it needs to be a top-down improvement starting with forming a legitimate governing body.


----------



## Siamese Dream

Yes I agree about the governing body, Ice Hockey UK do literally nothing and then when it is time for them to actually do something (GB team international tournaments) even then they **** it up and get it wrong. The EIHA are also useless but they've got a lot more on their plate to be dealing with, one major thing that holds them back from making significant changes are the insurance companies.

You're obviously new here so just so you know, I'm an actual player and referee in the system.


----------



## AlanHUK

99 Problems said:


> Improving attendance will not make a difference, some teams already get better attendances than teams in the KHL. Junior player development and cost of playing is the problem.




improved attendence leads to more intrest, which leads to more money going into the sport, which hopefully leads to better development and more ice across the country.


----------



## Siamese Dream

AlanHUK said:


> improved attendence leads to more intrest, which leads to more money going into the sport, which hopefully leads to better development and more ice across the country.




Increasing attendance in the top tier is just paving over the cracks. I'd honestly be surprised if the EIHL is even still here in 5 years time, history shows how unstable the top tier is. 

I've been through all the problems with the system enough times in the other thread, I'm not doing it again. Change needs to start at the grass roots level, I say just let the EIHL do it's own thing, they don't see most of the players until they are 20 anyway, by that time it is too late.


----------



## clatchie

99 Problems said:


> You're obviously new here so just so you know, I'm an actual player and referee in the system.



Aye, I figured digging through the forum. Yup, new to the sport as well as the forum, the UK version at least. 90% of what I know (or think I know) about the EIHL comes from just talking to match night staff and fans, or a couple of Avalanche fans who like the Steelers/Giants. So I fully expect to say something that'll get me put in my place at some point.


----------



## J17 Vs Proclamation

99 Problems said:


> You're obviously new here so just so you know, I'm an actual player and referee in the system.




Someone thinks their boots are very large.

I will challenge your claim to supremacy.


----------



## Siamese Dream

J17 Vs Proclamation said:


> Someone thinks their boots are very large.
> 
> I will challenge your claim to supremacy.




You may laugh and troll now, but one day I will be in charge, just watch 

I have been single handedly eliminating clutching and grabbing from English junior hockey, expect great things from me in the future


----------



## Jumptheshark

Sunking278 said:


> It's too rough and tumble for the Brits and French to play, and I say that only half in jest. Germans, Russians & other various Slavs, they take to it like fish out of water. It's a North American and Central/Eastern European game, that's just the way that it is.




I see someone is from the shallow end.

Have you seen how the Brits play rugby?

Here in London and area, there is one arena--45 football stadiums, only one arena


----------



## AlanHUK

DogEatDog said:


> I see someone is from the shallow end.
> 
> Have you seen how the Brits play rugby?
> 
> Here in London and area, there is one arena--45 football stadiums, only one arena




2 Arenas that have been used for hockey Wembley and the o2. 

though the o2 hasn't been used for hockey since 2007 and Wembley hasn't been used for hockey since 1996.

but your point still stands.


----------



## villevalo

Might help London's case for a top league team if Wembley starts having the playoff finals again, perhaps a joint Elite and EPL weekend, might attract a few non hockey Londoners to it. Just a thought.


----------



## Siamese Dream

This is going to sound really stupid because I wasn't around back then, but where exactly were the "Wembley" finals played, surely it was not at the football stadium?


----------



## villevalo

99 Problems said:


> This is going to sound really stupid because I wasn't around back then, but where exactly were the "Wembley" finals played, surely it was not at the football stadium?




Must of been the arena surely?


----------



## clatchie

What kind of joint event do you mean? EIHL all-stars vs EPL all-stars maybe?


----------



## villevalo

clatchie said:


> What kind of joint event do you mean? EIHL all-stars vs EPL all-stars maybe?




No, I meant combine both play off weekends and hold them both at Wembley, for e.g. best done over a Easter weekend, have one EPL semi and one EIHL semi on the Friday then the next two on the Saturday then both finals on the Sunday. Wont happen as long as the EIHL have a contract with Nottingham to hold it there, like I said just a thought.

Don't think that many people are interested in all-star games tbh.


----------



## Siamese Dream

villevalo said:


> Must of been the arena surely?




I always thought the arena was the football stadium, oops


----------



## clatchie

Er... 
There's a Wembley stadium AND arena? Well. 

Ok, yeah that's a good idea villevalo, might be bit of a tight fit though, you'd need Friday too probably. A pipe dream of course, but definitely logical.


----------



## Stray Wasp

takharov said:


> Ice hockey doesn't have any national exposure at all. Not even the NHL. At least the NFL is there in the public's mind although the sport will always remain a very minority sport here in player numbers, people are aware of the sport through coverage on the BBC.
> 
> Domestic hockey used to be broadcast on the BBC. Nowadays it is shunted into the wilds of Sky. Ditto for the NHL on ESPN UK.
> 
> If there was more coverage on terrestrial channels it would help. As it is the hockey public is confined to the old heartlands. Many major connurbations don't even have a team ie Liverpool or until very recently like Bristol.




I'm a bit late to this conversation, but I wanted to add that going back as far as the early nineties I recall hockey journalists repeatedly complaining that whenever they tried to push for greater national media coverage of the sport, they were told that the lack of a team from London was perceived as a major shortcoming by editors etc. It's hard to believe that mindset has changed.


----------



## howeaboutthat

Stray Wasp said:


> I'm a bit late to this conversation, but I wanted to add that going back as far as the early nineties I recall hockey journalists repeatedly complaining that whenever they tried to push for greater national media coverage of the sport, they were told that the lack of a team from London was perceived as a major shortcoming by editors etc. It's hard to believe that mindset has changed.




With a London-centric media in the UK this could very well be the case.

The only thing I'd say though is I don't believe a 'London' team would really work (and they haven't exactly shone in the past) because London is sub-divided by local loyalties (mainly based along compass points or soccer affiliations), because of loyalties to previous and existing London-based hockey teams (such as Streatham) and also because of the sheer size of London. Where could you place a single London team where it was both affordable and easy enough to get to for 'Londoners' to build a bond with it?

Personally I'd like to see a return of the Streatham Redskins to professional hockey. It is a shame that the hub project couldn't aim a little higher, make it a 2500-3000 seat capacity and there is the possibility of EPL/EIHL ice hockey in London.


----------



## Siamese Dream

howeaboutthat said:


> With a London-centric media in the UK this could very well be the case.
> 
> The only thing I'd say though is I don't believe a 'London' team would really work (and they haven't exactly shone in the past) because London is sub-divided by local loyalties (mainly based along compass points or soccer affiliations), because of loyalties to previous and existing London-based hockey teams (such as Streatham) and also because of the sheer size of London. Where could you place a single London team where it was both affordable and easy enough to get to for 'Londoners' to build a bond with it?
> 
> Personally I'd like to see a return of the Streatham Redskins to professional hockey. It is a shame that the hub project couldn't aim a little higher, make it a 2500-3000 seat capacity and there is the possibility of EPL/EIHL ice hockey in London.




I just don't think the interest is there in London, a lot of the city is ethnic minorities and I try to say this without sounding racist but they just generally aren't interested in hockey at all. I think a London club would also struggle to afford imports because of the higher costs of living in London especially housing compared to a northern city like Sheffield.

Plus like you said they never had success in the past, my teammate once told us about when he played for Wightlink Raiders when they were still in the EPL and had a 10 game losing streak at the start of the season, and to cheer up the locker room one of the imports said "It's alright, when I played for the London Racers we didn't win a game until February"


----------



## howeaboutthat

99 Problems said:


> I just don't think the interest is there in London, a lot of the city is ethnic minorities and I try to say this without sounding racist but they just generally aren't interested in hockey at all. I think a London club would also struggle to afford imports because of the higher costs of living in London especially housing compared to a northern city like Sheffield.
> 
> Plus like you said they never had success in the past, my teammate once told us about when he played for Wightlink Raiders when they were still in the EPL and had a 10 game losing streak at the start of the season, and to cheer up the locker room one of the imports said "It's alright, when I played for the London Racers we didn't win a game until February"




To be fair I think there is an interest in hockey within London, the issue is just making any team in London appealing to those who currently only follow NHL.

I'll be first to admit it, having been born in Detroit and brought up on a diet of Red Wings and Windsor Spitfires it wasn't easy convincing me to start watching hockey over here in the UK, especially not after my first taste of UK hockey which I was distinctly unimpressed with. Eventually though I married a Nottingham-born woman and moved to the city and as, unlike any other 'hockey city' I've been to in the UK, the fact there is hockey played in the city is very evident and hard to avoid I decided to give it another go and am now a season ticket holder. It isn't anywhere near the quality of the NHL but it is better to watch than what I watched years ago when I lived down south, enough to keep me entertained at least. 

As much as many Panthers fans like to bemoan Gary Moran (Panthers GM)it was the sheer amount of advertising and coverage that the Panthers have and get in the city that drew me in and this is what any London-based team would need, but I'd hazard a guess that it would not be too easy in a city with so many other entertainment distractions to choose from.

As for success in the past, 'London' teams haven't done particularly well (such as the awful Racers you mentioned) but teams from 'bits' of London have pretty decent track records and the revival of some of these teams would, I believe, be a far better option than trying to create a single team for all. If say Streatham Redskins and Haringey Racers/Wembley Lions were able to be re-born in the EPL/EIHL you'd have an instant local rivalry with North/South of the river connotations.


----------



## S E P H

I think hockey in France is starting to improve and show some growth. Thanks to Switzerland and Quebec.


----------



## S E P H

99 Problems said:


> American football isn't hated in the UK at all, when the superbowl is on everyone suddenly becomes a massive fan. The biggest problem in the UK and Australia is a lot of people have never actually heard of hockey, and everyone loves football (soccer or Aussie rules)




Tell me if this is true, but I heard that the Australia Hockey League has a great cult (underground) following, true?


----------



## villevalo

howeaboutthat said:


> but teams from 'bits' of London have pretty decent track records and the revival of some of these teams would, I believe, be a far better option than trying to create a single team for all. If say Streatham Redskins and Haringey Racers/Wembley Lions were able to be re-born in the EPL/EIHL you'd have an instant local rivalry with North/South of the river connotations.




If any London team was to put together a successful entertaining EPL team then they'd need a hell of a lot of cash to entice 4 good imports and a good brit pack, pay them, house them, and even more cash to put together an EIHL side.

I'd like to know what you mean by 'pretty decent track records'? As long as I've been a hockey fan, London teams have done well to survive season to season, and really the only successful London sides came in the 30's/40's/50's.


----------



## buzzbee

There are so many reasons in the UK!

*Olympics*
Sport is pretty big in the UK and everybody is clamouring for recognition, financing, press space etc. The bottom line is that if a sport gets coverage in the Olympics, it will get in the press and in the eye of the government for financing. To get to the Olympics, we need to improve, so we need that funding and press spaceâ€¦ chicken and egg


*Governance*
One huge problem with the way the sport is in the country is that leagues are governed by different bodies, overseen by UK Ice Hockey, who you never actually hear of. They certainly make no effort to pull the leagues together. There is very little cooperation between the leagues, who are generally seen as rival leagues. The biggest problem IMHO though is that the Elite League is run by the clubs. In 1996, with the game booming in the UK, owners of the top clubs formed the â€˜Superleagueâ€™ with a view to it being full of arena teams within 5 years. It crashed and left an â€˜Elite Leagueâ€™ that has a mix of arena teams and rink teams. Business models are clearly different, which makes league structure very difficult. IMHO, the league needs an independent body, which says, â€œThese are the rules for all of you. Now go and develop a business model suitable for your club, within league rules!â€ Currently, the bigger clubs want the league rules to be based around their business models.


*Development*
The Elite League teams are mainly foreign players. The bigger clubs are reluctant to reduce the number of overseas players, as they feel it will reduce the quality and the crowds will stop coming. IMHO, if they reduced the import numbers gradually, crowds would not decrease and British players would develop, helping the national team. See Olympics above. Generally, Elite league teams have no real regard for junior development. The English Premier League has a limit of 4 imports and good links with junior programs. In my team, 12 of this yearâ€™s 17 British players played for our junior club. If there could be a real chance to progress through in the same way to Elite League clubs, it would surely help


*Football*
I donâ€™t know what it is really like in other countries, but in the UK, football is about so much more than just the pro game. Sheffield are probably the biggest hockey club in the UK. In their catchment area, there are 8 professional teams (Sheffield Wednesday, Sheffield United, Barnsley, Rotherham United, Leeds United, Huddersfield Town, Doncaster Rovers, Bradford City) and countless others, who will pull in crowds in excess of what the Steelers will see. For smaller hockey clubs, they have to compete with dozens of local football teams. Even if you go down to about the 6th tier of English football, you will find crowds comparable to hockey crowds


*London*
London simply hasnâ€™t been able to sustain a top flight team. The London Knights in the old Superleague done OK, but their arena has been pulled down. The London Racers played in the Elite League, but in a tiny rink and it was never sustainable. If a sport doesnâ€™t have good representation in London, the press are not interested. It is hard to compete against footie in the capital, with 5 premiership teams and another 10 in the next 4 divisions



When I started watching hockey in the 80â€™s, it was the UKâ€™s biggest indoor spectator sport and I suspect it still is. There are probably in the region of about 30,000 spectators watching the top 3 leagues each weekend and there are quite a lot of juniors playing the sport, so the opportunity is there, but until the sport is accepted by the press, it will always be very much a minority sport. I have often mentioned my love of hockey to people, only to be greated by surprise that the game is played in the UK.


----------



## Bob b smith

Winters aren't cold enough.


----------



## howeaboutthat

buzzbee said:


> .....
> *Development*
> The Elite League teams are mainly foreign players. The bigger clubs are reluctant to reduce the number of overseas players, as they feel it will reduce the quality and the crowds will stop coming. IMHO, if they reduced the import numbers gradually, crowds would not decrease and British players would develop, helping the national team. See Olympics above. Generally, Elite league teams have no real regard for junior development.




You don't happen to post on THF do you?

I must say I completely disagree with this, especially the rather simplistic assertion that it is the 'bigger clubs' who want to keep import levels high.

In my opinion reducing import levels, even gradually, would initially have a more serious impact on the smaller teams in the EIHL rather than those who apparently want to keep import levels high. This is because decent quality Brits are in very short supply and as such they can demand fairly decent wages compared to say, a comparable import. Smaller clubs can't match these wage demands meaning that, as has always happened during the EIHL (and in the EPL to an extent) the better Brits go to the wealthier teams. Reducing import levels just takes away a potential source of cheap and better quality players with which the smaller teams can try to stay competitive, and hands the titles to whoever has the deepest pockets.

Also, if the EIHL reduced import levels, how do you think that would affect EPL etc? Why bother with expanding existing youth systems at EIHL teams when there is a developmental league into which those with fat wallets can dip?



> The English Premier League has a limit of 4 imports and good links with junior programs. In my team, 12 of this year’s 17 British players played for our junior club. If there could be a real chance to progress through in the same way to Elite League clubs, it would surely help




Without wanting to be too harsh on something that you obviously hold dear and not wanting to turn this into an EIHL vs EPL fest, you can tell that there is a stricter import limit in the EPL just from watching it. I'm sure that only the most ardent of zealots would deny that there is generally a gulf in quality comparable to that between the EPL and ENIHL, but moving on...

There _is_ a real chance for players to progress through to EIHL teams. For instance a few Nottingham Lions players are currently on two-ways with the Nottingham Panthers and some of those players have been with the Nottingham Ice Hockey Club since they first strapped on skates. Whilst the NIHC and Nottingham Panthers are not directly linked they have an increasingly close relationship and this season a Panthers rostered player is going the other way to the Lions on a two-way.

My final point though, why should it be the task of independent businesses (the ice hockey teams) to fund the development of the national team? This said though, being an American, I have no interest in the GB national team anyway.


----------



## Grabovski

alko said:


> Interesting fact is, that Great Britain won gold on the World Championships in 1936 (actually Olympic games), won silver in years 1937, 1938 and won bronze in years 1924 and 1937. So, the tradition should be there.
> But nobody know, when the passion for ice hockey died in Great Britain.




All Canadian players lol


----------



## Siamese Dream

Grabovski said:


> All Canadian players lol




A common misconception

I am not denying the team was primarily made up of ringers, you'd have to be an idiot to dispute that, but when you look at the facts:
- only one player on the roster wasn't actually born in Great Britain
- every player on the roster played for a British domestic team at the time
- the captain Carl Erhardt never played hockey in Canada, he was German/Swiss trained
- 2 players were fully British trained

So it is incorrect to say "all Canadian players lol"

Also, I may be mistaken but I believe every player on the roster would have been eligible under current IIHF rules.

That team was more British than the roster we took to the top division of the WC's in '94, but we didn't win that tournament, so Canadians didn't complain


----------



## clatchie

And of course, the other EIHL conference is named after Gardiner, the only goaltender in the history of the NHL to win the Stanley Cup as a captain. He was British enough for me, at least.


----------



## papaver

Personally I wish there there was more of a hockey following in the UK but since just about all of the local and national money available is put back into football I don't think it will ever happen.


----------



## Siamese Dream

papaver said:


> Personally I wish there there was more of a hockey following in the UK but since just about all of the local and national money available is put into *digging up roads and putting cones on the motorway for no reason* I don't think it will ever happen.




Fixed for you

Less and less money is getting put into all sports including football, most councils have actually been building stuff on playing fields


----------



## papaver

99 Problems said:


> Fixed for you
> 
> Less and less money is getting put into all sports including football, most councils have actually been building stuff on playing fields




True, but football is where the money is and in my opinion other sports suffer because of it


----------



## AlanHUK

papaver said:


> Personally I wish there there was more of a hockey following in the UK but since just about all of the local and national money available is put back into football I don't think it will ever happen.




Every single person I've taken to a game has since gone back of their own accord, it's an addictive experience. Take a couple of friends to a game, chances are they'll enjoy it and go again, more fans more money for the sport.


----------



## Siamese Dream

AlanHUK said:


> Every single person I've taken to a game has since gone back of their own accord, it's an addictive experience. Take a couple of friends to a game, chances are they'll enjoy it and go again, more fans more money for the sport.




Attendances aren't really the problem in my opinion. The Panthers and Steelers get better attendances than some KHL teams, but they are all funded by oligarchs and the government puts money into the league. It doesn't hurt to get more people going to games but if our teams really want to make money they have to do a better job getting sponsors and funding from outside sources, we'd be better off without Planet Ice too with their astronomical ice time costs, but one can only dream.


----------



## AlanHUK

It's a 2 way street really.

If you can get to the point of all teams selling out games on even a semi regular basis then Sky would increase their coverage because they know there would be interest. 

Extra revenue goes back into the game.


----------



## howeaboutthat

AlanHUK said:


> It's a 2 way street really.
> 
> .......Sky would increase their coverage because they know there would be interest.




If Sky increased 'their' coverage it would cost the EIHL more. As it stands the EIHL pay for the recording, editing and screening of all EIHL games, Sky just provides random slots in its schedule for the EIHL to fill, for a fee.


----------



## AlanHUK

That's how it works now, if the demand for the sport increases, so will the demand for it to be broadcast. Which means that ESPN for example could fill the space, or eurosport, or BBC/ITV could throw it onto one of their 4 channels.

While it is a small sport it will cost to get it broadcast, as it increases in popularity companies will pay for it to be broadcast.


----------



## Justinov

HabsByTheBay said:


> I'll be happy to continue the pile on but..
> 
> You have never watched a rugby game in your life, have you?
> 
> *Even in rugby the British countries and the French have a reputation as tough, physical players, especially the French*.
> 
> It's your types I giggle about when I hear Americans describe the French as soft. Never seen a French rugby game, I guess.




This post desperately need some Sebastian CHABAL - for anyone who hasn't seen the french monster in action!
Chabal Scoring:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-ltVNvimFE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwWsmK7906M&feature=related
Chabal Hits:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO-H0qRj1Ek&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCsWKA9B7c8&feature=related


----------



## Siamese Dream

Justinov said:


> This post desperately need some Sebastian CHABAL - for anyone who hasn't seen the french monster in action!
> Chabal Scoring:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-ltVNvimFE&feature=related
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwWsmK7906M&feature=related
> Chabal Hits:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO-H0qRj1Ek&feature=related
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCsWKA9B7c8&feature=related




The funny thing about Chabal is his long hair and beard makes him twice as intimidating


----------



## Bluebirds Boyo

Shouldn't it be "why would ice hockey be big in Britain?" I mean, it would be really bizarre if it was, if the long established, British-born sports of football, cricket and rugby had genuine competition from a game played on a temperature of water we only see for about three days a year by a bunch of Canadians and Finnish.


----------



## Justinov

Bluebirds Boyo said:


> Shouldn't it be "*why would ice hockey be big in Britain*?" I mean, it would be really bizarre if it was, if the long established, British-born sports of football, cricket and rugby had genuine competition from a game played on a temperature of water we only see for about three days a year by a bunch of Canadians and Finnish.




Well isn't it basically about media exposure which can bring investment in rinks and then make kids want to play.
Britain have won olympic gold medals in figure scating and curling....thats on ice as well? (and actually won gold medal in icehockey in 1936). If you talk about long established sports then hockey and for that matter lacrosse has been in Britain for a very long time. For some reason it just slowly through the decades lost more and more popularity and media exposure. Lacrosse for instance was once quiet big in Britain, but was until quite recently only really played in some towns south of Manchester as I remember. Now it seems to have a great renaissance because it resurfaced as a university sport. So the developement of cycling in Britain. Always been good in track cycling, but often only one guy in the Tour de France through 80's-90's and 00's. Then in the last couple of years a true explosion of talent. Sports are fashion-based. Kids choose what is "in". A sport can suddenly be out "in the cold", if it lose TV-exposure.


----------



## J17 Vs Proclamation

Individual sports can develop much faster than team sports. It isn't correct to compare cycling or similar sports with ice hockey. Many individual sports are inherently more natural (Or rather, easier to do) than ice hockey. It is also much much cheaper.

So yes, to a degree, some sports and their success are based on fashion. I would imagine Tennis for instance is a sport where you will see GB begin to excel at more and more over the coming years. For ice hockey, however, no such easier path exists. A random anamoly has much less impact, given the sport itself isn't played. People cycled, played Tennis etc before, but the investment wasn't perhaps there. With ice hockey, the numbers aren't really there, and those numbers don't get to train nearly enough, and are likely focusing on other avenues within their life too. Olympic funding can also be quite important, but funding isn't given to sports without medal chances. Especially within team sports, where the total medals given are much less, and where we already sit behind many other nations. The Winter olympics is also quite small here ; a novelty we enjoy from time to time. 

An Andy Murray or Wiggins can make people want to do that sport a little more. A random NHL player can't, given he's playing across the other side of the world, playing a sport most people don't have access to. Much less inspiration than someone like Murray, who plays a sport which is widely enjoyed at a rec-level, where Britain has established and visible importance (Wimbledon) in the sport. We will see development in basketball i feel, and American football is more popular amongst our youths (A cult type sport at university). Lacrosse as mentioned above to a smaller extent has a stigma of being a cool cult sport at Uni level. Ice hockey doesn't really have this tie. It's not in the limelight in anyway.

In this current age, where so many sports compete for a finite pool, and where many other alternatives outside sport exist, it is up to exceptional management, investment and luck to change the fortunes. Not an easy thing to do.


----------



## Siamese Dream

J17 Vs Proclamation said:


> the numbers aren't really there




We've actually got more registered players (and rinks) than countries like Denmark, Latvia and Belarus who have produced a few NHL players. So I don't think numbers are a valid excuse for not being able to develop good players.

Can't disagree with the rest of your post though.


----------



## Justinov

J17 Vs Proclamation said:


> *Individual sports can develop much faster than team sports*. It isn't correct to compare cycling or similar sports with ice hockey. Many individual sports are inherently more natural (Or rather, easier to do) than ice hockey. It is also much much cheaper.




What I have often seen as quite striking with british sports are that they often succesfull in individual sports but some team sports are generally abysmal.
When England won the rugby world cup in 2003 wans't it the first team sport gold medal for England since WC football 1960??
It seems only football, crickett and rugby where england is world class (though they rarely win), and then good in lacrosse and landhockey as well. But for instance handball, volleyball, basketball, water polo, ice hockey are way behind.
Maybe GB are very traditional in choice of team sports.....not like Russia that basically are good in most team sports. It seems Russians have the mentality that if there is medals to win at olympics there is opportunity. 
GB still seems very commenwealth and very little continental in it's choices (for instance no handball, that is the second sport in Denmark). 
So it need a change of perspective from media and people to look for new sports instead of all the old horses. Off course Rome wasn't build in 1 day, but at the olympics most people in GB didn't even know handball existed and then it's hard to choose as your sport as a kid. Icehockey is even worse since you need a rink and tv exposure to attrack kids - it's not a sport you can play in school or in the lunchbreaks.


----------



## J17 Vs Proclamation

99 Problems said:


> We've actually got more registered players (and rinks) than countries like Denmark, Latvia and Belarus who have produced a few NHL players. So I don't think numbers are a valid excuse for not being able to develop good players.
> 
> Can't disagree with the rest of your post though.




Those nations are small and have small registered numbers. So our numbers are still an issue. Latvia has hockey as it's #1 sport, and Denmark/Belarus have better investment in the sport, with better organisations and coaching. 

We may have more rinks, but if they aren't be used correctly or efficiently, what does it matter? Belarus is a prime example of this actually ; building many many rinks, yet no obvious improvement in their Junior system is superficially atleast, happening.


----------



## J17 Vs Proclamation

Justinov said:


> What I have often seen as quite striking with british sports are that they often succesfull in individual sports but some team sports are generally abysmal.
> When England won the rugby world cup in 2003 wans't it the first team sport gold medal for England since WC football 1960??




British sport has developed alot in the last 10-15 years, and is taking upon a more important role in society. Without doubt investment is better aimed than it used to be.



Justinov said:


> It seems only football, crickett and rugby where england is world class (though they rarely win), and then good in lacrosse and landhockey as well. But for instance handball, volleyball, basketball, water polo, ice hockey are way behind.




England (UK) are one of the world leaders in sport. Not many nations have better sporting success. Football is obviously highly competitive, but we have the biggest economic league in the world. In Rugby we are competitive, and cricket we are elite. Other sports like handball, volleyball etc have no culture here. Few people care about these sports. Basketball you will see advancements in. London/Birmingham are highly diverse (Meaning Black) cities where the sport is popular. You will see inevitable growth here IMO.

You don't finish 3rd in an Olympics medal table without being a very good sporting nation.



Justinov said:


> Maybe GB are very traditional in choice of team sports.....not like Russia that basically are good in most team sports. It seems Russians have the mentality that if there is medals to win at olympics there is opportunity.
> GB still seems very commenwealth and very little continental in it's choices (for instance no handball, that is the second sport in Denmark).




Cricket and Rugby are two of the bigger team sports worldwide. It's unjust to stipulate handball etc are bigger than those two. Equal perhaps. We simply partipicate in a different variety of team sports, manufactured over time through culture. There are almost no nations in the world that succeed in most/all of the percieved "big team sports". Most team sports stem from different cultures.

GB finish 3rd and 4th in the medal table for the last two olympics. Given China/US have a large population advantage, we are basically finishing in the best plausible position we can. GB is a highly successful sporting nation. Yes we excel in different sports, but you are assuming the sports played in your area are more distinct worldwide than ours are. This is not the case.

The investment in Olympic sports is high, but obviously sports like handball will not recieve much investment, because frankly, what is the point? It would take many many years to reach




Justinov said:


> So it need a change of perspective from media and people to look for new sports instead of all the old horses. Off course Rome wasn't build in 1 day, but at the olympics most people in GB didn't even know handball existed and then it's hard to choose as your sport as a kid. Icehockey is even worse since you need a rink and tv exposure to attrack kids - it's not a sport you can play in school or in the lunchbreaks.




I agree with all of the above


----------



## Siamese Dream

J17 Vs Proclamation said:


> Those nations are small and have small registered numbers. So our numbers are still an issue. Latvia has hockey as it's #1 sport, and Denmark/Belarus have better investment in the sport, with better organisations and coaching.
> 
> We may have more rinks, but if they aren't be used correctly or efficiently, what does it matter? Belarus is a prime example of this actually ; building many many rinks, yet no obvious improvement in their Junior system is superficially atleast, happening.




Yeah I know the number of players is abysmal considering the size of our population, but it isn't an excuse for why we can't produce NHL'ers, like you said the problems lie elsewhere


----------



## Justinov

J17 Vs Proclamation said:


> British sport has developed alot in the last 10-15 years, and is taking upon a more important role in society. Without doubt investment is better aimed than it used to be.
> 
> England (UK) are one of the world leaders in sport. Not many nations have better sporting success. Football is obviously highly competitive, but we have the biggest economic league in the world. In Rugby we are competitive, and cricket we are elite. Other sports like handball, volleyball etc have no culture here. Few people care about these sports. Basketball you will see advancements in. London/Birmingham are highly diverse (Meaning Black) cities where the sport is popular. You will see inevitable growth here IMO.
> 
> You don't finish 3rd in an Olympics medal table without being a very good sporting nation.
> 
> Cricket and Rugby are two of the bigger team sports worldwide. It's unjust to stipulate handball etc are bigger than those two. Equal perhaps. We simply partipicate in a different variety of team sports, manufactured over time through culture. There are almost no nations in the world that succeed in most/all of the percieved "big team sports". Most team sports stem from different cultures.
> 
> *GB finish 3rd and 4th in the medal table for the last two olympics*. Given China/US have a large population advantage, we are basically finishing in the best plausible position we can. *GB is a highly successful sporting nation*. Yes we excel in different sports, but you are assuming the sports played in your area are more distinct worldwide than ours are. This is not the case.




Actually my point was exactly that GB are a fantastic sport nation. But what struck me was that in olympic team sports GB doesn't do all that well. Football and land hockey are in the olympics (but how often do GB actually win any medals these days?) and rugby and cricket are not in the olympics at all. Of the olympic team sports like handball, vollleyball, basketball, water polo, icehockey GB is a non-presence. These sports have been in the olympics for decades, but still not any exposure in the GB. In Russia generally if a sport becomes olympic it will attract the interest of people and organisations. 
My point was not really that handball was bigger than rugby or cricket, but that rugby and cricket are very "commonwealth" (worldwide distribution but almost exclusively within the old Empire) and not continental (france exception in rugby). The choice of team sport in GB compared with the rest of Europe is really different and may show a very conservative approach. As you say of new team sports in GB its American football, basketball and partly lacrosse. It all shows a north american influence and not a continental one. So since of the NHL is north american is seem double strange that GB still lack behind is icehockey.
My post was not at all intended to say GB are bad in sports, but that the choice of sport seem very strange just from Denmark.


----------



## Siamese Dream

Justinov said:


> Actually my point was exactly that GB are a fantastic sport nation. But what struck me was that in olympic team sports GB doesn't do all that well. Football and land hockey are in the olympics (but how often do GB actually win any medals these days?) and rugby and cricket are not in the olympics at all. Of the olympic team sports like handball, vollleyball, basketball, water polo, icehockey GB is a non-presence. These sports have been in the olympics for decades, but still not any exposure in the GB. In Russia generally if a sport becomes olympic it will attract the interest of people and organisations.
> My point was not really that handball was bigger than rugby or cricket, but that rugby and cricket are very "commonwealth" (worldwide distribution but almost exclusively within the old Empire) and not continental (france exception in rugby). The choice of team sport in GB compared with the rest of Europe is really different and may show a very conservative approach. As you say of new team sports in GB its American football, basketball and partly lacrosse. It all shows a north american influence and not a continental one. So since of the NHL is north american is seem double strange that GB still lack behind is icehockey.
> My post was not at all intended to say GB are bad in sports, but that the choice of sport seem very strange just from Denmark.




The reason we are no good at any team sports except football, rugby and cricket, is because most people are off playing football, rugby or cricket. It is difficult to be good at lots of team sports when 90% of the interest is in only 3 sports. You need lots of good athletes to make up a successful ice hockey/handball/whatever team, you only need one guy to win you a cycling Gold. Wales always had this problem in football, they've had some world class players who were generational talents like Ryan Giggs and Ian Rush, but the team never had enough depth.

Ice hockey's problems lie within the system, there's enough interest here for us to be at least regulars in the top group of the WC's, but national team organisation (team doesn't get enough time together + other things) and junior development just sucks.


----------



## J17 Vs Proclamation

Justinov said:


> Actually my point was exactly that GB are a fantastic sport nation. But what struck me was that in olympic team sports GB doesn't do all that well. Football and land hockey are in the olympics (but how often do GB actually win any medals these days?) and rugby and cricket are not in the olympics at all. Of the olympic team sports like handball, vollleyball, basketball, water polo, icehockey GB is a non-presence. These sports have been in the olympics for decades, but still not any exposure in the GB. In Russia generally if a sport becomes olympic it will attract the interest of people and organisations.




Football is a sport we do not enter for the Olympics. Field hockey we are a competitive solid nation, capable of winning occassional medals. It's not our fault Rugby/Cricket aren't in the Olympics. 






Justinov said:


> My point was not really that handball was bigger than rugby or cricket, but that rugby and cricket are very "commonwealth" (worldwide distribution but almost exclusively within the old Empire) and not continental (france exception in rugby). The choice of team sport in GB compared with the rest of Europe is really different and may show a very conservative approach. As you say of new team sports in GB its American football, basketball and partly lacrosse. It all shows a north american influence and not a continental one. So since of the NHL is north american is seem double strange that GB still lack behind is icehockey.




Of course, given we were head of the commonwealth. Those sports derived largely from us, hence, we play them. I find it odd that you think that is odd, yet think sports played in central/eastern europe like water polo isn't "odd". 

Cricket/Rugby undoubtedly have greater international market pennetration than handball etc. 

I fail to see how it is a conservative approach. I don't think the meaning of that word is applicable to this conversation. Our nations grew up and developed different cultures and sports. We don't play handball because we are conservative, we don't play it because we developed other sports which fillied our attention with. There is nothing more innately radical with sports like handball than cricket. We are as likely to take to handball as you are to cricket. 

Our youth have a North American influence without doubt. The UK is much closer to the US than most of Europe culture wise. American football etc are very much university sports. It's easier to play at Uni, and advertised more given it's bigger in NA too than hockey, and it's probably seen as "cooler". Of course it's not as if we are good at American football, we simply have a more distinct small core of fans who like it. 

The only American sport with immediate potential is basketball. The NFL does see London as a potential market, but until American football is played at youth level here, you won't see much progression. It's not going to overtake Football, and it's direct competition is Rugby, which is played regularly each winter in schools.




Justinov said:


> My post was not at all intended to say GB are bad in sports, but that the choice of sport seem very strange just from Denmark.




I don't find your choice of sports strange simply because you don't play our sports. 

Outside of Football and going forward, basketball, there is no Team sport that is universally played everywhere. Most other team sports are much more regional.


----------



## Beville

The way I see it...

Hockey over here, is like Football over in America/Canada...

I feel they're both trending upwards in popularity, but will never make it as a 'go to' sport...




To the Olympic topic... Our best sporting results come in sports where we sit down a lot - Cycling and Rowing... Stereotyping your Nation FTW!


----------



## Bluebirds Boyo

Justinov said:


> My point was not really that handball was bigger than rugby or cricket, but that rugby and cricket are very "commonwealth" (worldwide distribution but almost exclusively within the old Empire) and not continental (france exception in rugby).




And then there's football. And tennis. And golf.

Great Britain has both founded sports and achieved in them to an elite-level against Continental Europe and the Commonwealth.

I imagine the reason why sports pursued in the former colonies are mostly team ones is due to them gaining popularity as a way for expats to bond.


----------



## Beville

99 Problems said:


> The funny thing about Chabal is his long hair and beard makes him twice as intimidating




Add to that the fact he looks like Jesus and opponents are in for a world of pain...


----------



## Deleted member 93465

Beville said:


> *The way I see it...
> 
> Hockey over here, is like Football over in America/Canada...*
> 
> I feel they're both trending upwards in popularity, but will never make it as a 'go to' sport...
> 
> To the Olympic topic... Our best sporting results come in sports where we sit down a lot - Cycling and Rowing... Stereotyping your Nation FTW!




I think you're being really generous to hockey. The 19-team MLS is on course to break 6,000,000 in attendance this season, at an average of over 18,500. What equivalent is there of hockey in Britain?


----------



## clatchie

Mathers said:


> I think you're being really generous to hockey. The 19-team MLS is on course to break 6,000,000 in attendance this season, at an average of over 18,500. What equivalent is there of hockey in Britain?




To be fair, if you cut those numbers down to a third, it's a proportionately accurate estimation - attendance wise, at least. Even then, it's still a bit too high though. 

A better American equivalent would be rugby, probably.


----------



## Deleted member 93465

clatchie said:


> *To be fair, if you cut those numbers down to a third, it's a proportionately accurate estimation* - attendance wise, at least. Even then, it's still a bit too high though.
> 
> A better American equivalent would be rugby, probably.




Not really sure what you mean by that. Last figure I can find for EIHL (09-10) clocked in at around 750,000 for the season, average of 2,300. Not exactly comparable figures.


----------



## Brodie

Sunking278 said:


> It's too rough and tumble for the Brits and French to play, and I say that only half in jest. Germans, Russians & other various Slavs, they take to it like fish out of water. It's a North American and Central/Eastern European game, that's just the way that it is.




Hockey is a combination of various British and Irish stick and ball sports played on ice, invented by British soldiers garrisoned in Canada in the late 18th and early 19th century. Hockey is essentially a British sport. 

And it's a simple factor of weather more than anything... hockey was fairly big in both countries at the turn of the century, when a) cross-migration with Canada was at it's highest and b) winters in Western Europe were much more severe.


----------



## Alpine

Would a better question be why is hockey so big in Canada, Finland, Sweden, Russia.
I've heard it many times hockey is in Canadians DNA.
Maybe months of natural ice, maybe we embrace winter and think of summer as playtime?
I dunno, but in this time of economic downturn we're still opening new ice pads in Canada.
Hockey isn't big in France and GB because it ain't that's all.
Yes I'm Canadian.
I put maple syrup on poutine. I think KD is a diet staple. Ketchup chips were a gift from the heavens and I think milk should only be sold in bags
And I truly believe that this is our alternative National Anthem
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx75Zoa_kVw


----------



## Beville

Mathers said:


> I think you're being really generous to hockey. The 19-team MLS is on course to break 6,000,000 in attendance this season, at an average of over 18,500. What equivalent is there of hockey in Britain?




Oh really? I thought MLS was still a 'not-really-cared-for-sport' 

My bad haha...

But in terms of GB Hockeys success...

You can liken that to the American football team... Sure they've got Donovan, and a few that play over here... But they're not exactly a dominating force... They're better than our hockey team, but I feel that's a better comparable haha


----------



## howeaboutthat

Mathers said:


> Not really sure what you mean by that. Last figure I can find for EIHL (09-10) clocked in at around 750,000 for the season, average of 2,300. Not exactly comparable figures.




If you take into account the populations of the countries in which MLS is played compared to the population of the UK, and compare the attendances for MLS and EIHL ice hockey as a ratio drawn against the relevant populations, then EIHL ice hockey doesn't stack up too bad. Yes MLS still comes out on top but this is hardly surprising given the ease at which a spectator can become familiar with the sport, which in turn may drive their interest. I can kick a soccer ball about on just about any patch of grass near my home, how many cities in the UK even have ice rinks, let alone ice rinks featuring any ice hockey? 

When the absolutely dominance of soccer in the UK as the number one team sport is taken into account and the ease by which individuals in any country can play/become familiar with it (boys in the park using hoodies as goal posts) the attendance figures for ice hockey in the UK aren't so bad.


----------



## HabsByTheBay

Soccer in the US is much, much, much bigger than hockey in the UK. MLS is the third most popular league among US soccer fans and it still blows away hockey. It's just not close. 

I played rugby in the US and that's not a bad comparison. Rugby is much more widely played in the US while much less of a spectator sport, but it's that same sort of feeling. Most big cities have a rink, a small shop dedicated to selling the gear, the playing base is very small but pretty enthusiastic, etc. Even has that far-flung Olympic history what with the '36 gold medal and the USA's two golds in rugby.


----------



## Deleted member 93465

howeaboutthat said:


> If you take into account the populations of the countries in which MLS is played compared to the population of the UK, and compare the attendances for MLS and EIHL ice hockey as a ratio drawn against the relevant populations, then EIHL ice hockey doesn't stack up too bad. Yes MLS still comes out on top but this is hardly surprising given the ease at which a spectator can become familiar with the sport, which in turn may drive their interest. I can kick a soccer ball about on just about any patch of grass near my home, how many cities in the UK even have ice rinks, let alone ice rinks featuring any ice hockey?
> 
> When the absolutely dominance of soccer in the UK as the number one team sport is taken into account and the ease by which individuals in any country can play/become familiar with it (boys in the park using hoodies as goal posts) the attendance figures for ice hockey in the UK aren't so bad.




I understand that soccer has natural advantages that contributes to its popularity. And I also understand that hockey does really well considering how many barriers are involved in playing the sport. So we're agreed there. 

However, the population thing isn't really a good comparison. If NFL averages 60,000+, and EPL averages 35,000, does it mean that EPL would be averaging 200,000+ if it was the same size as the US? The clear answer is that it wouldn't. There is a limit to what leagues can average regardless of the size of the country. In the case of hockey and basketball, the main barrier is the dimensions of rinks/courts that limit arena sizes to the upper limit of 20-23,000.

Don't get me wrong, MLS is small time if we're comparing it to the Big 4 leagues, but its still further ahead than EIHL. Other than attendance, I'll cite a few other examples: its invested over $1.4B in stadiums over the past decade. Adidas sponsors MLS to the tune of $200m over 8 years. Many clubs have shirt sponsorships comparable to EPL teams. LA Galaxy for instance have a $100m 10-year local TV deal. Seattle Sounders local ratings would be in the top third in the NHL/top half in NBA. These are some things which have no comparison in EIHL.

Then again, I suppose these comparisons don't really matter as MLS/EIHL remain on the lower end of the spectrum in their respective countries.


----------



## Bluebirds Boyo

You don't need to even bring up all those MLS investment and sponsorship facts. Your average American has heard of MLS, your average Briton has absolutely no idea about the Elite Ice Hockey League. Your average American has heard of David Beckham and Pele, few in the UK know of Crosby or Ovechkin. A fair few know of the LA Galaxy, only a tiny amount of people know of the Nottingham Panthers. It's entirely different.


----------



## Deleted member 93465

Bluebirds Boyo said:


> You don't need to even bring up all those MLS investment and sponsorship facts. Your average American has heard of MLS, your average Briton has absolutely no idea about the Elite Ice Hockey League. Your average American has heard of David Beckham and Pele, few in the UK know of Crosby or Ovechkin. A fair few know of the LA Galaxy, only a tiny amount of people know of the Nottingham Panthers. It's entirely different.




Point taken, but MLS is still only a fraction of soccer support in the States. As someone said, its probably 3rd behind Euro and Mexican soccer. 

The average punter doesn't care about MLS, but MLS isn't really a barometer for the sport. A Premier League game on the weekend got a 1.1 in the ratings, compared to a game in MLS getting 0.4. We could ask the same of hockey: instead of looking at EIHL, what signs are there that the NHL is popular? Any comparisons need to take the whole picture into account. 

But to come back on topic, its the climate and lack of history with the game. The sports that were popular 100 years ago in the UK are the same sports that dominate today. Basically nothing has changed. For change to take place, you need a large grassroots movement, and a conducive climate to play the game. Hockey at this point has neither of those things in the UK, or France. The only sport that can really establish itself in the UK that isn't big already is basketball I feel. 

There's a good reason why hockey is popular in the parts of Europe that it is. Nothing is out of place about it. Suitability to playing the game which leads to participation, which leads to history and cultural relevance.


----------



## BMann

J17 Vs Proclamation said:


> It's not our fault Rugby/Cricket aren't in the Olympics.
> 
> Cricket/Rugby undoubtedly have greater international market pennetration than handball etc.
> 
> I don't find your choice of sports strange simply because you don't play our sports.
> 
> Outside of Football and going forward, basketball, there is no Team sport that is universally played everywhere. Most other team sports are much more regional.




Cricket is truly a minority sport. Most countries inc. Denmark who have produced the odd decent cricketer like Ole Mortensen would be thumped by a decent club side in England.

Rugby union is in the Olympics from 2016 and it is no longer an Empire relic either. It is the second most popular team sport across the world and the roots are growing stronger and developing fast in countries aided by Argentina like Chile, Brazil in Africa too and across Asia and indeed in Europe.

Given ice hockey was born here in Scotland it is a shame it hasn't developed to the extent it has given that it is a tremendous thrill ride for spectators.

The reasons have been gone over time and time again. Lack of a coherent focused approach to grow the sport with long term aims and a focused junior programme which makes the sport available to all and provides top class coaching to kids and picks out the best ones.

It can be done. Denmark for instance have shown it can be done. We could do it too but the leadership and desire and conflicting interests will not permit it.

It would be great to see Team GB at the Winter Olympics in this discipline but it's going to be a long time before it happens.


----------



## Siamese Dream

takharov said:


> Cricket is truly a minority sport. Most countries inc. Denmark who have produced the odd decent cricketer like Ole Mortensen would be thumped by a decent club side in England.
> 
> Rugby union is in the Olympics from 2016 and it is no longer an Empire relic either. It is the second most popular team sport across the world and the roots are growing stronger and developing fast in countries aided by Argentina like Chile, Brazil in Africa too and across Asia and indeed in Europe.
> 
> Given ice hockey was born here in Scotland it is a shame it hasn't developed to the extent it has given that it is a tremendous thrill ride for spectators.
> 
> The reasons have been gone over time and time again. Lack of a coherent focused approach to grow the sport with long term aims and a focused junior programme which makes the sport available to all and provides top class coaching to kids and picks out the best ones.
> 
> It can be done. Denmark for instance have shown it can be done. We could do it too but the leadership and desire and conflicting interests will not permit it.
> 
> It would be great to see Team GB at the Winter Olympics in this discipline but it's going to be a long time before it happens.




The rise of Denmark as a hockey nation just proves we don't really have an excuse anymore. Obviously external stuff prevents us from becoming a true hockey power but we no longer have an excuse for not being able to produce NHL players, the problems lie within the system.


----------



## DundeeStars

I think junior hockey is doing well in the uk. I watched the bracknell U14's tournament this year and thought it was some of the best hockey I had seen the dundee U14's play. With Bracknell playing in England and Dundee playing in Scotland the teams had never played each other. Bracknell were undefeated that season and so was the Dundee so it was pretty much who ever one was the best U14's in britian. The final came down to these two teams and was a great match to watch.


----------



## Siamese Dream

DundeeStars said:


> I think junior hockey is doing well in the uk. I watched the bracknell U14's tournament this year and thought it was some of the best hockey I had seen the dundee U14's play. With Bracknell playing in England and Dundee playing in Scotland the teams had never played each other. Bracknell were undefeated that season and so was the Dundee so it was pretty much who ever one was the best U14's in britian. The final came down to these two teams and was a great match to watch.




The two best teams in the UK playing 1 game aren't really a good represention of the state of junior hockey.

Do you want me to list for you all the junior games that have been won by 10+ goals so far this season? Or the number of teams who have just 2 lines?


----------



## villevalo

DundeeStars said:


> I think junior hockey is doing well in the uk. I watched the bracknell U14's tournament this year and thought it was some of the best hockey I had seen the dundee U14's play. With Bracknell playing in England and Dundee playing in Scotland the teams had never played each other. Bracknell were undefeated that season and so was the Dundee so it was pretty much who ever one was the best U14's in britian. The final came down to these two teams and was a great match to watch.




Sorry to take off topic, but Bracknell has got a lot of younger squads like that U14 side, lots of good young prospects are coming through the age groups here. Going to be exciting to see who makes it to EPL, Elite, hopefully beyond that.


----------



## DundeeStars

> The two best teams in the UK playing 1 game aren't really a good represention of the state of junior hockey.
> 
> Do you want me to list for you all the junior games that have been won by 10+ goals so far this season? Or the number of teams who have just 2 lines?




I guess that is very true. last year in the scottish league they put in a rule so that if you were winning by 10 goals they stopped counting the score or marking your stats down. I wasn't to sure on this rule and it annoyed alot of people.


----------



## Bluebirds Boyo

Mathers said:


> We could ask the same of hockey: instead of looking at EIHL, what signs are there that the NHL is popular?




None. Because it isn't.


----------



## HabsByTheBay

I came across a wonderfully nerdy book called Homes of British Ice Hockey in Foyles the other day.

It is depressing to see how most British towns and cities are going backwards in terms of hockey. Most ice hockey fans in London would crawl over broken glass for something like Harringay Arena today.


----------



## Justinov

Imaginary Threats said:


> *The rise of Denmark as a hockey nation just proves we don't really have an excuse anymore*. Obviously external stuff prevents us from becoming a true hockey power but we no longer have an excuse for not being able to produce NHL players, the problems lie within the system.




Yeah because it's not that many years ago when Denmark lost to GB in hockey. It started to change slowly through 90's probably because to our proximity to Sweden, that allowed promising young players to play there while going to school. But still the money for danish hockey is still minute and it's almost all based on passion within hockey families. But getting good coaches and trainers was what changed it slowly around from C-group to A-group.
With the money GB could throw in the olympics, they could get a hockey going fairly fast if they wanted. Denmark still have very few skating rinks (around 20 shared with figure skating and curling) and players (4000 all included), since it's up to local communes to invest in rinks (and they have small budgets). 
Our olympic qualification has to be played in Vojens where the AL-bank team SÃ¸nderjyskE comes from. It's a town of massive 7.666 people (also famous for their Speedway history). They should be quite a number of GB towns over 7.500 people that could manage as well, being proud of their elite hockey team instead of playing (very) lower league football. 
All it takes is one hockey fan running for mayor  (which if i remember correctly actually is partly the reason RÃ¸dovre has a hockey club and have produced Lars Eller, Mikkel BÃ¸dker and Jannik Hansen). So GB hockey fans - get into politics


----------



## clatchie

Proximity to Sweden is a good point. For British guys to make it to the NHL they need to play in foreign leagues early.


----------



## Thesensation19*

HabsByTheBay said:


> Soccer in the US is much, much, much bigger than hockey in the UK. MLS is the third most popular league among US soccer fans and it still blows away hockey. It's just not close.
> 
> I played rugby in the US and that's not a bad comparison. Rugby is much more widely played in the US while much less of a spectator sport, but it's that same sort of feeling. Most big cities have a rink, a small shop dedicated to selling the gear, the playing base is very small but pretty enthusiastic, etc. Even has that far-flung Olympic history what with the '36 gold medal and the USA's two golds in rugby.




The MLS is the third most popular league among US soccer fans? What does this exactly mean... 

Soccer fans rank MLS the 3rd most in Soccer leagues in the world? Soccer fans in America rank the MLS #3 in pro sports in North America?

the MLS is not ranked #3 in the US or North America for pro team sports. Even the MLS biggest markets are at least #4 ranked in their cities and states for popularity. Hockey is 10x more popular in North America than the MLS... Hockey has always been more popular than Soccer in the US. 

And the MLS is not the 3rd ranked soccer league in the world. If United States citizens who LOVE soccer rank MLS the 3rd to watch soccer league in the world, then thats sad for the MLS. You live in a country with a pro soccer league and you still rank 2 or more leagues ahead of you... According to FIFA, the MLS is not even in the top 10. 



The UK is not as popular in hockey simply because its not tried to do so. North Americans have tried to bring it over to the UK but its not gaining as much support as they hoped. There not marketing it right, there not believing in it enough. The current Elite league in the UK from what I hear has grown, as every league in the world has in hockey in the last 10 years.

Soccer just dominates the UK and it wont change. Same way hockey dominates Canada. But if they wanted to grow the game in the UK, they have to find better investors.


----------



## howeaboutthat

Thesensation19 said:


> The UK is not as popular in hockey simply because its not tried to do so. North Americans have tried to bring it over to the UK but its not gaining as much support as they hoped. There not marketing it right, there not believing in it enough. The current Elite league in the UK from what I hear has grown, as every league in the world has in hockey in the last 10 years.




Eh? Are you trying to say North Americans introduced ice hockey to the UK? I'm not quite sure how much more wrong you could be, indeed there is a hell of a lot of evidence to point to the Brits inventing the modern version of the sport and spawning its rise in popularity in NA. Great Britain was (I believe) a founder member of the IIHF and teams in the UK have competed since at least 1900, if not earlier.

If you are talking about the modern game (EIHL, EPL etc) then can you point out who these North Americans running the show are? The two biggest teams in UK hockey (Nottingham Panthers and Sheffield Steelers) are owned (owners) and run (GMs) by Brits.



> Soccer just dominates the UK and it wont change. Same way hockey dominates Canada. But if they wanted to grow the game in the UK, they have to find better investors.




This I agree with, though to be honest it isn't purely a question of investing in the teams, its about investment in the facilities. You'd have to have very deep pockets to fund the building of facilities as well as run a team and I'm really not sure such investors would see a return on such outlay. Hell, soccer teams lose money hand over fist and that is the UK's #1 sport.


----------



## Thesensation19*

the main point i wish to make is to underline the fact that hockey really had a set back from 1994-2005. In many countries the duration is a bit longer. 

The NHL had issues from 94 to 2005 but now records are being broken in terms of revenue and popularity. You can blame the 94 shortened season and short lock out, you can blame the trap or boring hockey but I think it was a lack of marketing. The league doesnt do a good job on marketing its players. Lemieux having health issues and gretzky on the brink of his career did not help. Its like if the NHL now lost Crosby again... and Ovechkin. They would have a hard time in marketing the game if not for these two guys... Luckily the winter classic revived many lost fans. I know theres a current lockout but I think the league wont be affected as much this time around.

But you can see all over that many leagues all over the world had issues in marketing the game especially world wide but now in recent years you can see many leagues including the NHL grow in popularity.

The Croatian league was nothing from 91 to 2007 but their star powered medvescak franchise really turned around the sport in the country. NY times did an article on them, they held one of the most famous outdoor games and the team is treated like rockstars in the capitol. The Austrian hockey league has made huge progress in the last 4 years. The german league has made the most progress in the last 10 years. Popularity in all these Euro countries have grown in the last decade, some have grown tremendously. 


Even Russia had its issues once Communism fell and the product of sports in the country diminished. The Super league was a joke until the KHL took it over and Medved came under control... the league is far more serious now and far more organized. 


In a recent article, it stated that hockey is now the 2nd most popular team sport in Europe. And it kind of makes sense. Soccer/Football takes the cake as #1 but in many countries Hockey is above or right next to soccer in popularity. Russia/Sweden/Czech/Finland/Slovakia all have hockey right up there in #3, #2 or maybe even #1.


----------



## Siamese Dream

Thesensation19 said:


> the main point i wish to make is to underline the fact that hockey really had a set back from 1994-2005. In many countries the duration is a bit longer.




Lol no, in the UK this was when hockey popularity was at its peak, during the Super League era. Manchester Storm played the Sheffield Steelers in front of a sold out Nynex Arena in 1997, with an attendance of over 17,000.


----------



## Thesensation19*

I know it has roots in Northern European regions but I did not mean North America was introducing the sport to the UK, i mean that it was trying to expand the game there.

Cuz frankly, the UK was never that big in the sport to begin with. Many British troops would come over to Canada and play with other immigrants but the sport never really took off on the professional or elite level.

But that game was just a few or more people skating on ice with a ball and a stick. There are actual mentions of the game between Native Americans in Canada before the british came who played between tribes and regions for sport, for fun, for war. Way before the 17th century. Folk tale stories still told today.

but the modern game is probably more due to Canadians rather than the brits. The brits did come over and expand the game here but the game stands here in Canada. Montreal was the first modern game. Boards, goalis, teams and everything. Victoria.


I


----------



## J17 Vs Proclamation

takharov said:


> Cricket is truly a minority sport. Most countries inc. Denmark who have produced the odd decent cricketer like Ole Mortensen would be thumped by a decent club side in England.




Cricket is not a minority sport. If it is, rhen we must assume there are only 2 sports which we cannot categorize under niche and minority.





takharov said:


> Rugby union is in the Olympics from 2016 and it is no longer an Empire relic either. It is the second most popular team sport across the world and the roots are growing stronger and developing fast in countries aided by Argentina like Chile, Brazil in Africa too and across Asia and indeed in Europe.




It is a slowly growing sport, but of course, but it still dwarfed by cricket financially. Clearly this is due to one nation ; India and it's "sizeable" population. This population does give cricket somewhat of an artificial inflation relative to other sports. However, the domination culturally it has in that region of the world, the capital involved and it's influence spreading is to more significant than the money and expansion undergoing in Ruby as of now.



takharov said:


> Given ice hockey was born here in Scotland it is a shame it hasn't developed to the extent it has given that it is a tremendous thrill ride for spectators.




Impossible to disagree with this  



takharov said:


> The reasons have been gone over time and time again. Lack of a coherent focused approach to grow the sport with long term aims and a focused junior programme which makes the sport available to all and provides top class coaching to kids and picks out the best ones.




It's odd. Our development system for football is archaic and wasteful. Of course developments between sports do not inherantly correspond, but it is interesting. Even with publicity, prestige and vast avenues of capital, systems still rely on working efficiently in the correct areas. This gives us both hope and dejection at the same time, i feel.



takharov said:


> It can be done. Denmark for instance have shown it can be done. We could do it too but the leadership and desire and conflicting interests will not permit it.




I don't claim much knowledge on the history of Danish ice hockey. I cannot critique it, or understand whether the sport had an easier progression due to climate, logistical proximity and culture than we ourselves have. 



takharov said:


> It would be great to see Team GB at the Winter Olympics in this discipline but it's going to be a long time before it happens.




Elite level World Championships, 2nd or 3rd tier at all Junior levels regularly would be a more achieveable and projectable goal. 

With astute management, we definitely have long-term small growth potential. The registration totals, available ice, league standard etc is not too dissimilar to nations like Norway and Denmark. That type of growth, the ability to produce some solid European pro league players, and compete and occassionaly have solid games with some of the bigger members, is certainly plausible and in theory, feasible.

Long-term substantial growth, however, is something that seems somewhat unattainable. It's not a sport which will recieve capital investment from olympic bodies. It has no market pennetration with the critical age groups, no serious tv presence, and resides in a market utterly dominated by one sport ; a sport which continues to grow larger and larger. The EPL isn't sustainable as it is forever, but as a juggernaut enterprise, it still has more growth left in it for a good deal of time. I find it virtually impossible to believe in my life-time (and i am not an aging chair sitter) we will ever UK hockey amongst the core elite.


----------



## Alpine

C'mon now Canada has 3 maybe 4 pro soccer teams?
TSN is buying the rights to provincial curling bonspeils. Over 1,100 curling clubs with over a million registered members. Sports networks are fighting each other for figure skating.
Here's why it's not big. No months of natural ice. It''s not pros or TV that make hockey big it's.............
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYkbLB1IfeY

CFL out draws NFL head to head in Canada on TV
Hockey well..........it's Canada


----------



## Alpine

I just gotta.........
Why hockey isn't big? Cuz they ain't got no winter.
English team at the World Pond
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1tbtpMBDrs&feature=related


----------



## Siamese Dream

Alpine said:


> I just gotta.........
> Why hockey isn't big? Cuz they ain't got no winter.
> English team at the World Pond
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1tbtpMBDrs&feature=related




As I have said to my Slovenian friend several times, England is the country of only one season, it gets a little bit colder in December and January, and a little bit warmer in July and August, the rest of the year is pretty much the same and it rains.


----------



## Alpine

Imaginary Threats said:


> As I have said to my Slovenian friend several times, England is the country of only one season, it gets a little bit colder in December and January, and a little bit warmer in July and August, the rest of the year is pretty much the same and it rains.




So it's not like where I live minus 30C in February and plus 30C in July.
Gawd I wonder why Canadians don't take summer sports seriously for the 3 months we don't have to wear layers of clothes
Canadian Police chase
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsxV49pmnL8


----------



## Deleted member 93465

Thesensation19 said:


> In a recent article, it stated that hockey is now the 2nd most popular team sport in Europe. And it kind of makes sense. Soccer/Football takes the cake as #1 but in many countries Hockey is above or right next to soccer in popularity. Russia/Sweden/Czech/Finland/Slovakia all have hockey right up there in #3, #2 or maybe even #1.




Hockey isn't the number 2 team sport in Europe. Its the number 2 team sport in _regions_ of Europe. For example, basketball is far more popular in southern Europe than hockey (hockey really isnt even on the radar in the south). Europe has 700 million people. Its like saying hockey is the 2nd most popular sport in North America because its the most popular sport in Canada. Its a bizarre claim. 

You named 5 countries; there are 47 countries in Europe. In the majority of those, it would be generous to hockey to say that it is a niche sport.


----------



## ukyote

Simple - not enough rinks. I've always wanted to take it up and my skating is fine, but simply don't have the means to get to and from the nearest ice rink on a regular basis.

To illustrate the lack of facilities, when I was at uni in Edinburgh the team they were starting up managed to get squeezed in for ice time at 3am on Saturday mornings... so you can imagine how many people went to the sessions.


----------



## ukyote

Imaginary Threats said:


> I just don't think the interest is there in London, a lot of the city is ethnic minorities and I try to say this without sounding racist but they just generally aren't interested in hockey at all. I think a London club would also struggle to afford imports because of the higher costs of living in London especially housing compared to a northern city like Sheffield.
> 
> Plus like you said they never had success in the past, my teammate once told us about when he played for Wightlink Raiders when they were still in the EPL and had a 10 game losing streak at the start of the season, and to cheer up the locker room one of the imports said "It's alright, when I played for the London Racers we didn't win a game until February"




Totally disagree, I used to go to Knights games regularly before the team folded, and the London Arena would usually have 7 - 8k, which is not bad at all for such a tiny sport in the UK. Now there is no pro team at all in London, with such a large (and young) US / Canadian / Eastern European expat population... utter insanity IMO.


----------



## Siamese Dream

ukyote said:


> Totally disagree, I used to go to Knights games regularly before the team folded, and the London Arena would usually have 7 - 8k, which is not bad at all for such a tiny sport in the UK. Now there is no pro team at all in London, with such a large (and young) US / Canadian / Eastern European expat population... utter insanity IMO.




The knights, in the BISL era, when hockey was a new novelty and at the peak of its popularity with an artificially high standard due to all the imports. 

Enter the EIHL era the standard drops, and so does popularity. Attendances weren't good enough to keep up with the costs of the O2, and there are no other suitable affordable rinks in London for pro hockey.


----------



## ukyote

Imaginary Threats said:


> The knights, in the BISL era, when hockey was a new novelty and at the peak of its popularity with an artificially high standard due to all the imports.
> 
> Enter the EIHL era the standard drops, and so does popularity. Attendances weren't good enough to keep up with the costs of the O2, and there are no other suitable affordable rinks in London for pro hockey.




As somebody who lives in the city, I can tell you first hand that the population of young people from ice hockey playing countries has exploded since the ISL existed. Most of them would leap at the chance to watch hockey if it were reasonably priced, no matter what the level. I should know, I go out with a Slovak girl who misses hockey badly and several of her eastern European friends are the same. Ditto my Yankie and Canadian friends. Demand is definitely there.

As for you point about the arena, I agree on that... shame the London Arena had to go because that was about the right size. If you read my previous post you'll notice that the first thing I said was that there's a lack of rinks.


----------



## Siamese Dream

ukyote said:


> As somebody who lives in the city, I can tell you first hand that the population of young people from ice hockey playing countries has exploded since the ISL existed. Most of them would leap at the chance to watch hockey if it were reasonably priced, no matter what the level. I should know, I go out with a Slovak girl who misses hockey badly and several of her eastern European friends are the same. Ditto my Yankie and Canadian friends. Demand is definitely there.
> 
> As for you point about the arena, I agree on that... shame the London Arena had to go because that was about the right size. If you read my previous post you'll notice that the first thing I said was that there's a lack of rinks.




There are 3 rinks in London, 4 if you include Romford. That's 2 semi-pro teams, one amateur team and Haringey are supposedly getting an amateur team next season. Streatham Redskins are a semi-pro team, they're playing in a temp rink in Bristol at the moment, it's right next to the train station so not difficult to get to. Instead of complaining go watch them.

If you Londoners can prove the interest is there and start showing up to games then people might take notice and give you a pro team.


----------



## BalticWarrior

Hey guys! How do you view this Olympic qual giving publicity to Team GB? could this be somekind of a turning point for hockey in britain? or am i just overreacting?


----------



## ukyote

Imaginary Threats said:


> There are 3 rinks in London, 4 if you include Romford. That's 2 semi-pro teams, one amateur team and Haringey are supposedly getting an amateur team next season. Streatham Redskins are a semi-pro team, they're playing in a temp rink in Bristol at the moment, it's right next to the train station so not difficult to get to. Instead of complaining go watch them.
> 
> If you Londoners can prove the interest is there and start showing up to games then people might take notice and give you a pro team.




Wow, are you always this condescending to others with differing views...?!

Perhaps I should qualify my previous statement... I wouldn't want to go and watch an amateur team given how inaccessible all of the places you mentioned are. Bristol isn't easy to get to from anywhere in London... neither are the ice rinks in Haringey, Streatham, Romford (Essex) or Lee Valley for that matter, believe me. London is massive and proximity to public transport is everything, particularly when it takes an hour to get from one side of the city to the other. Crossharbour, in stark contrast to all of the aforementioned, is very easy to get to from just about anywhere.

When I lived in Edinburgh I happily made the slog across the city every week, with a number of north Americans, to watch the Capitals even though they lost basically every game. I wouldn't have done the same for an amateur team. Stick a professional team in London in an accessible venue and people will go, as long as it's advertised and not overpriced (as proven with the London Knights). I know quite a few people who regularly watched the Knights but could not do the same when the Racers were formed, purely because of logistical problems.


----------



## villevalo

Helo said:


> Hey guys! How do you view this Olympic qual giving publicity to Team GB? could this be somekind of a turning point for hockey in britain? or am i just overreacting?




Unless we pull of a win or ideally two against France and Kazakhstan then I dont think it'll do too much, might get a few extra bodies in a rink the next weekend, they might stay, they might not.

This sort of thing hinges on how well the team does, for us hockey fans we know how well GB did yesterday given their opponents, but your everyday sports fan will just think "wow they sure suck" etc.


----------



## villevalo

ukyote said:


> Wow, are you always this condescending to others with differing views...?!
> 
> Perhaps I should qualify my previous statement... I wouldn't want to go and watch an amateur team given how inaccessible all of the places you mentioned are. Bristol isn't easy to get to from anywhere in London... neither are the ice rinks in Haringey, Streatham, Romford (Essex) or Lee Valley for that matter, believe me. London is massive and proximity to public transport is everything, particularly when it takes an hour to get from one side of the city to the other. Crossharbour, in stark contrast to all of the aforementioned, is very easy to get to from just about anywhere.
> 
> When I lived in Edinburgh I happily made the slog across the city every week, with a number of north Americans, to watch the Capitals even though they lost basically every game. I wouldn't have done the same for an amateur team. Stick a professional team in London in an accessible venue and people will go, as long as it's advertised and not overpriced (as proven with the London Knights). I know quite a few people who regularly watched the Knights but could not do the same when the Racers were formed, purely because of logistical problems.




He means Brixton not Bristol.

His point does stand though, if people are supposedly desperate for hockey then they'd seek out any level they can. If you dont want to watch ENL hockey, then you dont, that's your preference of course, but as you say if you and your girlfriend and friends miss hockey 'badly' as you say, you dont miss hockey that bad then no? If people dont turn up for ENL hockey that's generally Â£10 a head minimum in London would they turn up for Elite hockey at probably Â£20 a head minimum? 

I understand the higher standard in product but your not going to be paying Capitals prices in London, not these days.

But this isnt a recent problem, when was the last time a professional hockey team in London lasted? It's been a long time, and not simply because of a lack of proper arenas.

I cant see an EIHL team sticking it out in London, it's professional...but I think only just, unless you find some business man willing to spend Nottingham/Belfast money and add onto that the London prices of housing for players, ice time, jesus everything is more expensive in London as of course you'll know.


For London, the best bet is that the KHL expansion really takes off, we see a London team in the Euro conference of their plan playing in the O2, perhaps it'll draw in the big three of the Elite in with them. Anything less is too little IMO.


----------



## ukyote

villevalo said:


> He means Brixton not Bristol.
> 
> His point does stand though, if people are supposedly desperate for hockey then they'd seek out any level they can. If you dont want to watch ENL hockey, then you dont, that's your preference of course, but as you say if you and your girlfriend and friends miss hockey 'badly' as you say, you dont miss hockey that bad then no? If people dont turn up for ENL hockey that's generally Â£10 a head minimum in London would they turn up for Elite hockey at probably Â£20 a head minimum?
> 
> I understand the higher standard in product but your not going to be paying Capitals prices in London, not these days.
> 
> But this isnt a recent problem, when was the last time a professional hockey team in London lasted? It's been a long time, and not simply because of a lack of proper arenas.
> 
> I cant see an EIHL team sticking it out in London, it's professional...but I think only just, unless you find some business man willing to spend Nottingham/Belfast money and add onto that the London prices of housing for players, ice time, jesus everything is more expensive in London as of course you'll know.
> 
> 
> For London, the best bet is that the KHL expansion really takes off, we see a London team in the Euro conference of their plan playing in the O2, perhaps it'll draw in the big three of the Elite in with them. Anything less is too little IMO.




To be honest, the price isn't as important as accessibility. Most people have jobs with long hours if they live and work here, and a lot of games used to be played mid-week (not sure if that's the case now); it's no fun to spend all of your free time travelling across a massive urban sprawl to poorly connected ice rinks. That's fair enough about the Brixton thing though - I genuinely didn't know that, so thanks for the heads up. I'll definitely be going along!

Re the "desperate for hockey so you'll watch any level" argument; I can understand that, but if you weight up the things I've mentioned before with how little time / money people generally have, they will rarely invest either of those things in semi-professional sport unless it's on their doorstep, or they really are hopelessly addicted. I love lots of different sports a great deal, but there are limits to the lengths I'll go to watch low level sport live.


----------



## Siamese Dream

ukyote said:


> Wow, are you always this condescending to others with differing views...?!
> 
> Perhaps I should qualify my previous statement... I wouldn't want to go and watch an amateur team given how inaccessible all of the places you mentioned are. Bristol isn't easy to get to from anywhere in London... neither are the ice rinks in Haringey, Streatham, Romford (Essex) or Lee Valley for that matter, believe me. London is massive and proximity to public transport is everything, particularly when it takes an hour to get from one side of the city to the other. Crossharbour, in stark contrast to all of the aforementioned, is very easy to get to from just about anywhere.
> 
> When I lived in Edinburgh I happily made the slog across the city every week, with a number of north Americans, to watch the Capitals even though they lost basically every game. I wouldn't have done the same for an amateur team. Stick a professional team in London in an accessible venue and people will go, as long as it's advertised and not overpriced (as proven with the London Knights). I know quite a few people who regularly watched the Knights but could not do the same when the Racers were formed, purely because of logistical problems.




The reason I am being condescending is it is people like you who hold back the sport in this country and it is frustrating. You like hockey but don't go to games because "the standard is poor" well the standard isn't going to get better unless you actually go to games! You can't complain about the standard if you don't contribute anything. London isn't going to get a pro team when teams like Streatham are getting attendances of 100 while teams in the same league are getting 800+. You claim the interest is there so prove it. 

As Villevallo said I meant Brixton not Bristol. The rink is right next to the Brixton train station, surely it is not that hard to get there? I could drive there from Reading in less than an hour. Yes some of them are inaccessible, Haringey is a pain in the ass to get to, as you mention London is a massive city so what makes you think it would be any easier to get to where the pro team is located.

I have to echo what VV said, if you don't want to watch NIHL level hockey then fine that's your choice, but if you really missed hockey as much as you say then you would go. It's only Â£8 for an adult ticket for Streatham games, have you ever actually seen NIHL1? It's actually a decent standard and good value for money.


----------



## Siamese Dream

Helo said:


> Hey guys! How do you view this Olympic qual giving publicity to Team GB? could this be somekind of a turning point for hockey in britain? or am i just overreacting?




It's been very positive, we got the game yesterday trending on twitter. Coming off the back of London 2012 there is lots of interest in Olympic sports, and with other Sochi qualification events going on in other sports there is a lot of media attention


----------



## ukyote

Imaginary Threats said:


> The reason I am being condescending is it is people like you who hold back the sport in this country and it is frustrating. You like hockey but don't go to games because "the standard is poor" well the standard isn't going to get better unless you actually go to games! You can't complain about the standard if you don't contribute anything. London isn't going to get a pro team when teams like Streatham are getting attendances of 100 while teams in the same league are getting 800+. You claim the interest is there so prove it.
> 
> As Villevallo said I meant Brixton not Bristol. The rink is right next to the Brixton train station, surely it is not that hard to get there? I could drive there from Reading in less than an hour. Yes some of them are inaccessible, Haringey is a pain in the ass to get to, as you mention London is a massive city so what makes you think it would be any easier to get to where the pro team is located.
> 
> I have to echo what VV said, if you don't want to watch NIHL level hockey then fine that's your choice, but if you really missed hockey as much as you say then you would go. It's only Â£8 for an adult ticket for Streatham games, have you ever actually seen NIHL1? It's actually a decent standard.




You're missing my point; I did used to go... every week. Then my team disappeared and the only alternatives are very hard for me to get to on any regular basis. I'm not going to apologise for not wanting to travel 2 hours plus, all in, to pay to watch semi-pro sport.

As the other chap pointed out, you meant Brixton as opposed to Bristol in your previous post, which is much more accessible for me. I will be going along.

Sorry if I'm "holding the country back", but if "real fans" like yourself are always this hostile towards what you would call "casual fans" then it's no wonder people lose interest.


----------



## Siamese Dream

ukyote said:


> You're missing my point; I did used to go... every week. Then my team disappeared and the only alternatives are very hard for me to get to on any regular basis. I'm not going to apologise for not wanting to travel 2 hours plus, all in, to pay to watch semi-pro sport.
> 
> As the other chap pointed out, you meant Brixton as opposed to Bristol in your previous post, which is much more accessible for me. I will be going along.
> 
> Sorry if I'm "holding the country back", but if "real fans" like yourself are always this hostile towards what you would call "casual fans" then it's no wonder people lose interest.




Sorry I didn't think about the fact you used to go. I was more talking about those people who are just NHL fans and have never actually been to a game here. 

I am glad we have educated you about the team in Brixton, I didn't realise you didn't know they were actually there. Streatham don't have a large fanbase but they are one of the most passionate and bring great atmosphere to games, I have a huge amount of respect for them


----------



## ukyote

To tell you the truth, given that it became too hard for me to watch hockey in this country I lost interest in the domestic game, only to return to this site when we got to this tournament in Riga... I wouldn't have found out about hockey in Brixton if I hadn't come on here. If nothing else, that should show the potential of GB's great achievement to boost numbers!


----------



## Siamese Dream

ukyote said:


> To tell you the truth, given that it became too hard for me to watch hockey in this country I lost interest in the domestic game, only to return to this site when we got to this tournament in Riga... I wouldn't have found out about hockey in Brixton if I hadn't come on here. If nothing else, that should show the potential of GB's great achievement to boost numbers!




How did you hear about the tournament?


----------



## villevalo

ukyote said:


> To tell you the truth, given that it became too hard for me to watch hockey in this country I lost interest in the domestic game, only to return to this site when we got to this tournament in Riga... I wouldn't have found out about hockey in Brixton if I hadn't come on here. If nothing else, that should show the potential of GB's great achievement to boost numbers!




Ally Pally is also going to have senior hockey back for next season as well so might wanna keep checking on them every so often.


----------



## ukyote

Imaginary Threats said:


> How did you hear about the tournament?




BBC.

I dip in and out of the NHL these days and will be glued to the TV during the Olympics next year (esp given the Slovak connection). North American coverage of British hockey is minimal to say the least...


----------



## Siamese Dream

villevalo said:


> Ally Pally is also going to have senior hockey back for next season as well so might wanna keep checking on them every so often.




I think they'll only be starting in NIHL2 but might work their way up if they can get a fanbase


----------



## Shrimper

I had no idea Streatham was in London.


----------



## latvianhockeyfan

Why?

Traditions, coaching level(best coaches are not in hockey for sure), players talent level(almost all best players talent are in other sports).
Only region sport, not all country sport.


----------



## goalie2point0

I would try to answer this question with one word : Football (soccer).

That's so sad, I would like to see a good ole' hockey rivalry with GB... London Spitfires vs. Paris Revolution or something. Damn.

But before that we need a better organization, in France at least. We need big competitive clubs in big cities like Paris, Lyon or Lille (I don't see Marseille with some big hockey community but who knows...). I don't say that the FranÃ§ais Volants' club should be bought by Qatar or something but today, those clubs exist but still play around the third division...

Those clubs have to reach the top league (Magnus). That done, people will come to game, maybe bandwagon a little, but that's good for the visibility anyway. And people will come if the hockey is played at a decent level. Paris host a friendly Canada-France game and it was sold out.

There is hope. 

PS: We need MORE ice rinks. Today we have to fight for some ice-time super late in the morning or late in the evening.


----------



## switch23

Too busy to watch foot and drinking.


----------



## HabsByTheBay

Expats are usually a poor population to draw on. They're often transient and don't really care. Sure, some guys are interested and will watch, but among my ball-hockey playing friends I think 80% would rather curl onto the couch and watch NHL GameCenter than go and watch a live hockey game, unless it was at least Extraliga quality. That other 20% are almost entirely long-term expats, people who have married and started a family here and are interested in the development of the sport because, hey, wouldn't it be great if my son could play here on his way to the NHL?

It's frustrating because as a Londoner I see people all the time in NHL jerseys - there's some Swedes in my neighborhood and we both stare slack-jawed at each other when we walk past each other going to Sainsburys - them in their Flyers/Canucks jerseys, me in my Habs sweater. So I know there are other people besides me who like hockey. But I bet Sven and Tom wouldn't be too interested in going to Brixton, except to skate.


----------



## ukyote

HabsByTheBay said:


> Expats are usually a poor population to draw on. They're often transient and don't really care. Sure, some guys are interested and will watch, but among my ball-hockey playing friends I think 80% would rather curl onto the couch and watch NHL GameCenter than go and watch a live hockey game, unless it was at least Extraliga quality. That other 20% are almost entirely long-term expats, people who have married and started a family here and are interested in the development of the sport because, hey, wouldn't it be great if my son could play here on his way to the NHL?
> 
> It's frustrating because as a Londoner I see people all the time in NHL jerseys - there's some Swedes in my neighborhood and we both stare slack-jawed at each other when we walk past each other going to Sainsburys - them in their Flyers/Canucks jerseys, me in my Habs sweater. So I know there are other people besides me who like hockey. But I bet Sven and Tom wouldn't be too interested in going to Brixton, except to skate.




We used to get quite a few ex-pats when the London Knights existed! The difference there was the level was much higher than anything in London now.


----------



## Siamese Dream

ukyote said:


> We used to get quite a few ex-pats when the London Knights existed! The difference there was the level was much higher than anything in London now.




The level then was higher than anything in the entire country now.


----------



## Garethw87

I've just read through all of the thread... there are a lot of non Brits commenting on why hockey isn't popular in Britain.. how you know I have no idea. Looking on IIHF and checking rink numbers/player numbers doesn't mean anything. As mention Latvia is a perfect example. The Latvian league is basically Amateur/Semi-pro if you are lucky yet they are one of the best hockey nations with just ~2.5m people. Yeah they have Dinamo Riga but even Dinamo can only have so many players on their roster... Denmark are better then GB, Norway are. Now the Norwegian league is probably on par with the EIHL - yet Norway are an Elite level nation...

Concerning France i'm sure hosting the IIHF World Champs will bring hockey into the public view. As for GB we refused to host an IIHF event because of costs ect...

We have many problems. Football/soccer isn't the problem really. Just because one sport is big doesn't mean people don't like anything else. Hockey here needs a lot more advertising and marketing. The Manchester Storm did what they did (fill the MEN arena as mentioned almost 18k, get into European Competition and beat/drew with Sparta Prague/Dynamo Moscow ect) because they had money behind them and they put the word out. People always complained that the Storm used to give away tickets to businesses.. surely a good move? if you give 500 away and 200 people keep coming back it's paying off.

I feel for the Londoner who misses his pro hockey too. I go to the Manchester Phoenix now not because I want to but because I have too. When the Storm fell, so did Ice hockey in Manchester, the Phoenix came back in the EIHL but some people (me included) can't forget the days of the MEN and the big time, it's hard to remember the Storm then go sit in Altrincham, paying more then the Storm was watching some kids play who, if I had a few months spare time to train, I could be just as good as.

The leagues are a joke here too. EIHL - EPL - NIHL. It's a waste having these 'compete' and is very stupid. The EIHL is the top. The others should accept this and work together to form better relationships. We need some form of affiliate system so the players work up to the big league. Instead we get lazy Brit players who demand way too much money and they know they can. Next point..

British players - they need to move abroad for us to get better. Look at Ben O'Connor, Rob Dowd. They need to copy these and not just sit on their local team taking away 1 a place and 2 all their money. Take a chance.

Fans. Are very very annoying. I love hockey, but even I feel outcasted by this strange breed of 'ice hockey is only for us' group who support each team. It's as if they don't want 'non hockey' fans at the games, learning the game ect. More fans = better for everybody.

Other things I noticed reading...

American Football is in fact very popular in this country. Go look on the league's home page. Its run very well and is of a good standard. Some teams get hundreds of fans attending games and it's all amateur! The NFL get's almost 2 full days of viewing time on Sky Sports when the season is on, as well as Normal TV showing a live game and the Superbowl being on National TV.

Cricket is not a big sport in this country. Just because people watch the ashes doesn't make it 'big' Cricket teams struggle and have no attendances. More people watch ice hockey per year then Cricket. Almost every cricket team survives on hand outs from England Cricket Board and they are having to take action to ensure it all doesn't go bust.

Handball probably is the worlds number 2 sport believe it or not. Go take a look at the spectator numbers and TV numbers especially.

According to the IIHF. Attendance Europe wide for Ice hockey is around 43m per year.


----------



## Siamese Dream

Garethw87 said:


> watching some kids play who, if I had a few months spare time to train, I could be just as good as.




What


----------



## Garethw87

Imaginary Threats said:


> What




Lets put it this way. I went to watch the Trafford Metros v Blackburn Hawks. So NIHL Division 1. They are all most interested in trying to big stupid hits then actually play the game. It was shocking. Oh and two Trafford players decided to start fighting EACH OTHER because they had no idea what was going on!!

Obviously not all of the NIHL is like this but the overall quality is poor. Their best ambition for most of them is make the EPL which isn't all that great either. If the leagues were linked EIHL-EPL-NIHL so on we'd have greater ambition and a better setup.


----------



## Siamese Dream

Garethw87 said:


> Lets put it this way. I went to watch the Trafford Metros v Blackburn Hawks. So NIHL Division 1. They are all most interested in trying to big stupid hits then actually play the game. It was shocking. Oh and two Trafford players decided to start fighting EACH OTHER because they had no idea what was going on!!
> 
> Obviously not all of the NIHL is like this but the overall quality is poor. Their best ambition for most of them is make the EPL which isn't all that great either. If the leagues were linked EIHL-EPL-NIHL so on we'd have greater ambition and a better setup.




Oh, I thought you were talking about the EPL. 

The quality of NIHL division 1 is far better and more professional in the southern conference. I haven't really seen NIHL in the north, but southern officials who have travelled up to Solihull, Coventry and Telford to work a few games have told me this.


----------



## Garethw87

Imaginary Threats said:


> Oh, I thought you were talking about the EPL.
> 
> The quality of NIHL division 1 is far better and more professional in the southern conference. I haven't really seen NIHL in the north, but southern officials who have travelled up to Solihull, Coventry and Telford to work a few games have told me this.




Yeah the EPL is fine. I'd like them to maybe up import levels to say 5 or even 4 on the actual ice at one time.

NIHL North is fine too just abit hit and miss. Look at Solway Sharks they are ambitious and probably aiming for the EPL eventually.

I guess my overall answer to how to make the sport better is a governing body that actually cares and gets involved like others have said.


----------



## Siamese Dream

I still think it's ignorant to say you could be "just as good as them" if you "had a few months spare time to train"

Most of those guys have been playing since before they were 12 years old


----------



## Garethw87

Imaginary Threats said:


> I still think it's ignorant to say you could be "just as good as them" if you "had a few months spare time to train"
> 
> Most of those guys have been playing since before they were 12 years old




As was I. From 11. Then eventually the team secretary decided to steal all the money and the team went bust. Another story for another thread!

You must see my point. I have the Manchester Phoenix. My home team who still charge me Â£15 (and increase this for Playoffs) then I have the Steelers just down the road. Big arena, big team, better quality and it's usually cheaper to go!

I don't want to see teams like Manchester who drop down because of 'costs' just continue to spend the same amount and dominate. Then we have Elite league v2 where only the 'big clubs' get any say.


----------



## Sureshot

As many others have said - lack of organization, lack of rinks, lack of opportunities, lack of promotion, lack of media attention. 

When I was at school, hockey was not even considered a target trackable by radar, let alone determined to be off it. As for exposure, the only reason I happened to get into hockey was because I rented NHLPA '93 from a video store one time - before that, I'm not actually sure if I knew it existed. 

The only reason I'm starting to play it is because I'm in the US now, where I have multiple ice and roller rinks a stone's throw away. The massive lack of inconvenience of even considering to play in the UK makes it a totally unappealing option compared to other sports. At least with a healthy framework it makes dropping your paycheck on $$$s of equipment feel like you're getting satisfactory value for money.

Until as such time someone pumps money into it, forms a decent organization, builds more rinks and starts making hockey even an option in schools, then it's destined to remain a comfortable also-ran in the UK.


----------



## Jumptheshark

there are no arenas here in the UK


----------



## 3 Minute Minor

bozwell said:


> there are no arenas here in the UK




ummm


----------



## KHLJokers*

I think hockey could raise as popular in France as it is now in Germany. Dont know why people are so blind that they dont see fineness of hockey here?


----------



## 3 Minute Minor

Petitcochon said:


> I think hockey could raise as popular in France as it is now in Germany. Dont know why people are so blind that they dont see fineness of hockey here?




I bet more games like yesterday between France/GB would raise the profile. That was such great stuff that I fell asleep while watching an NHL game a few hours later.


----------



## Shrimper

Petitcochon said:


> I think hockey could raise as popular in France as it is now in Germany. Dont know why people are so blind that they dont see fineness of hockey here?




It would help if people didn't charge ridiculous amounts for streams to watch games.


----------



## UKwild

Propane Nightmares said:


> You may laugh and troll now, but one day I will be in charge, just watch
> 
> I have been single handedly eliminating clutching and grabbing from English junior hockey, expect great things from me in the future






Propane Nightmares said:


> The level then was higher than anything in the entire country now.




People will say that the London Knights failed, they did, but not because of the sport or quality of product, they played at one of the most inaccessible arenas around, from Wembley, almost an hour on the tube then on the DLR to the middle of nowhere. The London Racers out in Romford, the middle of nowhere again. Arena locations are key in London.

I live in Wembley, Iâ€™ve been to Bracknell for games, which can take up to an hour and a half driving, Iâ€™ve been to Ally pally for games for Haringey Racers and although which is 10 miles give or take as the crow flies, lovely and local. It takes about 1 hour 15 minutes by trains. 

Arena location and peoples knowledge of events are the 2 key nails in the coffin. I know people who want to go but its a pain in the rear.
I only had more knowledge about Haringey Racers as they appeared on some Wowcher deals, it was cheap tickets, but its still hard to get to on a Saturday night and they got about 600 or 700 people.

I went to the 2 kings Ducks games at the O2 which were sell outs, I underestimated how many Eastern European rooted Londoners would attend, that market exists but they donâ€™t have a clue where it is on or when. The potential popularity is here.

As for a Wembley team in the Elite. Wembley is great for Central and West Londoners, brilliant tube connections, it would work a lot better than previous London teams. But people would have to generate a buzz, get the word out. You never know if it became a success, using some of the old Olympic park, like a copperbox could serve the other side of London who wouldnâ€™t attend Wembley (huge long way off, huge long shot).

But back to previous comments from yesteryear, well Wembley Arena would be great, but it would not be a full time Ice rink, they are not in abundance around here. Perhaps a temporary rink in parts of the area that need developing would have to be part of the overall plan. And there are huge sways around the Arena and Stadium ready for development or in development, itâ€™s just an old industrial area in reality in need of the continued development. For a team to be a benefit to us, well it needs to improve the grass roots level.

Or more outdoor rinks for longer in the year, not just for the xmas shopping brigade. Get kids teams to play on them during the day, shoppers would stop and have a pint and get more interest. Just a thought.

And the streaming cost is bs, someone surely has to get tv interested, not just premier sports, but BBC or ITV or Channel 5. Even just for GB games and the younger GB teams, generate some interest. Someone has to don the suit and get it sorted, if someone can sell these tv talent shows and rubbish then someone can sell Ice hockey.

Is footy the problem, no, I wouldn't think so, they are a huge market in an unbelievably size London market. I went to Wembley 3 times in the autumn, England vs Montenegro â€“ full of fans fed up they canâ€™t have a pint, NFL Minnesota Vikings, full of fans loving the fact they could have a pint and Rugby Saracens, again full of fans loving the fact they could have a pint. Donâ€™t underestimate the powers of being able to have a pint, should be the marketing slogan. In reality, the laid back atmosphere, the pints, people arenâ€™t scared (families) of the stereotypical footy fan, these are all selling points, I know more people who go to non football events than footy nowadays, expensive, hassle and yeah the stereotypes puts people off.


----------



## Duff35

Credit where due, the London Racers were one of the better teams at trying to market themselves - but played out of, first, Ally Pally and then Lee Valley. 

Neither are realistically suitable for a top flight team IMHO - especially in the capital, where the competition for punters pounds is higher than anywhere

Honestly, I think too many folks are simply barking up the wrong tree on this one - 'no one' wants to spend the money to build an EIHL (or perhaps even EPL...) suitable rink in London. The smarter business move is/will be housing or similar.

So before you even look at running a team, and the costs involved, you've hit a barrier - one I am not convinced can be overcome currently.

Forgetting that pretty important fact for a moment though - IMHO you'd really need two London teams; one North of the river, one South. Play on the 'rivalry' to build local interest.

Talk about ex-pats all you want; both Knights and Racers failed to build and sustain regular crowds. Without that underlying 'hardcore', no team will succeed - let alone one in the big smoke. At least with two teams playing on that North South divide they have a fighting chance via the 'bragging rights' element


----------



## TorontoLeafer

Sunking278 said:


> It's too rough and tumble for the Brits and French to play, and I say that only half in jest. Germans, Russians & other various Slavs, they take to it like fish out of water. It's a North American and Central/Eastern European game, that's just the way that it is.




I think the eagle as your picture makes it funnier.  (just a joke)

I take it you haven't seen a rugby match before? They're usually bleeding afterwards. They have very minimal padding also. Now, I'm not saying rugby is a tougher sport than hockey. Hockey needs the padding because a puck can come on quite tight if you get hit. Also, the ice and blades are a danger. 

You should watch a rugby match or even just some clips on youtube and you'll see it's fairly rough.

I think the reason why hockey isn't so popular western Europe is due to the weather. Most of the top hockey leagues have very snowy winters. Sweden, Norway, Czech Republic, Russia etc.


----------



## DrewUKisles

wether this is of any interest to anyone either side of the pond? 

http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/do-you-think-hockey-was-invented-in-canada-think-again/


hockey just isnt popular enough to ever get the funding for the sport to grow over here.. not that I care personally. wouldnt want to see the NHL become a 'vogue' sport like the NFL & NBA have become recently with their yearly visits to the O2 arena and wembley.

theres 2 of us at my workplace that employs 150 in total that follow NHL and have done for years...we make do with confusing looks and questions from everyone there whenever discussing it, quite amusing


----------



## BladesofSTEELwFIRE

Ironic that in Quebec hockey is like a religion yet in France it's a tiny sport? You would think parts of the UK are cold enough and it should be a lot bigger. I know it gets cold enough in France too.

Like you guys said they need more rinks and rich hockey fans donating equipment so they can play.


----------



## BladesofSTEELwFIRE

Gareth, ice hockey is bigger in England than cricket?? You serious?

What about Scotland, Wales, and Ireland?


----------



## Siamese Dream

BladesofSTEELwFIRE said:


> Ironic that in Quebec hockey is like a religion yet in France it's a tiny sport? *You would think parts of the UK are cold enough* and it should be a lot bigger. I know it gets cold enough in France too.
> 
> Like you guys said they need more rinks and rich hockey fans donating equipment so they can play.




They aren't, except in the Scottish Highlands, where very few people actually reside

In the past 20 years it's only been cold enough once for a lake to freeze over enough to skate on it, for about 3 days


----------



## Jonimaus

BladesofSTEELwFIRE said:


> Ironic that in Quebec hockey is like a religion yet in France it's a tiny sport? You would think parts of the UK are cold enough and it should be a lot bigger. I know it gets cold enough in France too.
> 
> *Like you guys said they need more rinks and rich hockey fans donating equipment so they can play.*




Both France and UK is considerably more wealthy than US and most other countries playing hockey, they don't need people "donating equipment", they just need to care, which they don't.


----------



## wings5

Jonimaus said:


> *Both France and UK is considerably more wealthy than US *and most other countries playing hockey, they don't need people "donating equipment", they just need to care, which they don't.




What?........


----------



## 3 Minute Minor

wings5 said:


> What?........




he's probably right in a sense. All the wealth in US is tied up in a small section of the population while in UK & definitely France, it's more spread out.


----------



## BladesofSTEELwFIRE

Propane Nightmares said:


> They aren't, except in the Scottish Highlands, where very few people actually reside
> 
> In the past 20 years it's only been cold enough once for a lake to freeze over enough to skate on it, for about 3 days




What about that article that has been posted on here that ice hockey actually started in England? It started on frozen lakes so it must be cold enough. Even Charles Darwin was a hockey fan!


----------



## Siamese Dream

Scarecrow Boat said:


> he's probably right in a sense. All the wealth in US is tied up in a small section of the population while in UK & definitely France, it's more spread out.




I can assure you, life for an ordinary person like myself life is much more comfortable in the United States than it is here, your money gets you a lot further. 



BladesofSTEELwFIRE said:


> What about that article that has been posted on here that ice hockey actually started in England? It started on frozen lakes so it must be cold enough. Even Charles Darwin was a hockey fan!




Yes, more than a century ago. The UK is now one of the most densely populated countries on the planet, with many big towns and cities, towns and cities = heat


----------



## 3 Minute Minor

Propane Nightmares said:


> I can assure you, life for an ordinary person like myself life is much more comfortable in the United States than it is here, your money gets you a lot further.




That's the thing, an ordinary person in the States doesn't have money or are 1 trip to the hospital away from being in massive debt.


----------



## Siamese Dream

Scarecrow Boat said:


> That's the thing, an ordinary person in the States doesn't have money or are 1 trip to the hospital away from being in massive debt.




No, what I'm saying is an American family working similar jobs with with the similar annual income as mine would own a house twice the size and have 2 (better) cars, fuel is triple the cost here of what it is there, they have a lot more disposable income than us because stuff is cheaper

I don't contest that the US has a lot more relative poverty and inequality than the UK, but to say that it isn't a wealthier country is just incorrect


----------



## 3 Minute Minor

Propane Nightmares said:


> No, what I'm saying is an American family working similar jobs with with the similar annual income as mine would own a house twice the size and have 2 (better) cars, fuel is triple the cost here of what it is there, they have a lot more disposable income than us because stuff is cheaper
> 
> I don't contest that the US has a lot more relative poverty and inequality than the UK, but to say that it isn't a wealthier country is just incorrect




That's a generalization though. Having similar annual income as yours won't get you a house twice the size, 2 cars, etc. if you live in the big cities.

Most of USA's population is in the big cities where a huge percentage of the population is living under the poverty line.

Don't get me wrong, money will get you further in US than it will in the UK based on the cost of living, but there are a bigger % of people that struggle in the US than the UK.


----------



## Lynx54321

The size and price of houses in the USA are generally bigger and lower respectively but that's purely because of the size of the place. You go anywhere where there is less space and more demand though like in most cities and the trend will reverse.

You also have to take into account that although they pay a lower percentage of their income in tax over in the USA there is no NHS and such which we take for granted over here.

I'm not disagreeing with your point by the way, your probably right just adding a couple notes.


----------



## Jonimaus

Regardless of anything, a point was made that UK and France had to have rich people donating equipment for them to play, which was one of the most laughable comments I've read on any forum ever. Money has nothing to do with the lack of hockey interest in those countries. They have more than enough money to get a hockey culture started given time and money, if they wanted to.


----------



## Siamese Dream

Jonimaus said:


> Regardless of anything, a point was made that UK and France had to have rich people donating equipment for them to play, which was one of the most laughable comments I've read on any forum ever. Money has nothing to do with the lack of hockey interest in those countries. They have more than enough money to get a hockey culture started given time and money, if they wanted to.




Yeah, we have money, and millions of it is given by governing bodies to "sports" like orienteering, and a lovely big fat 0 to ice hockey


----------



## BladesofSTEELwFIRE

Propane Nightmares said:


> Yeah, we have money, and millions of it is given by governing bodies to "sports" like orienteering, and a lovely big fat 0 to ice hockey




LOL...what is orienteering??


----------



## Siamese Dream

BladesofSTEELwFIRE said:


> LOL...what is orienteering??




Walking in a forest and reading a map, literally

Apparently they do timed team competitions and stuff, but when I did it with the army we dawdled and had some banter while following a clever person who led the way with the map and compass

But people take it seriously enough to wear spandex while doing it, so it must be a real sport


----------



## AlanHUK

with the UK it seems that for a sport to be big sky have to get behind it.

considering their article on the NHL draft didn't bother mentioning a british born player was taken in the first round I think it might take a while for that to happen.


----------



## BladesofSTEELwFIRE

AlanHUK said:


> with the UK it seems that for a sport to be big sky have to get behind it.
> 
> considering their article on the NHL draft didn't bother mentioning a british born player was taken in the first round I think it might take a while for that to happen.




Wow, I didn't even know that. Who is it and did he acutally grown up in Britain?


----------



## 3 Minute Minor

BladesofSTEELwFIRE said:


> Wow, I didn't even know that. Who is it and did he acutally grown up in Britain?




Brendan Perlini. Left England when he was 11


----------



## BladesofSTEELwFIRE

Scarecrow Boat said:


> Brendan Perlini. Left England when he was 11




Cool..would he play for Britain or Canada in international play?


----------



## 3 Minute Minor

BladesofSTEELwFIRE said:


> Cool..would he play for Britain or Canada in international play?




already played for Canada at the U18s


----------



## BladesofSTEELwFIRE

Scarecrow Boat said:


> already played for Canada at the U18s




If the British national team were any good he might consider playing for them.


----------



## Siamese Dream

BladesofSTEELwFIRE said:


> If the British national team were any good he might consider playing for them.




If the Welsh national football team were any good, Gareth Bale might consider playing for them

Oh wait...


----------



## 3 Minute Minor

BladesofSTEELwFIRE said:


> If the British national team were any good he might consider playing for them.




It's more of a culture thing. In a country like Canada playing for the national side in hockey is a huge deal while in GB half the hockey fans could give a **** about the national teams as they're satisfied watching imports come over from the ECHL & lower leagues to play in their domestic league, regardless of the effect on the homegrown player development.


----------



## BladesofSTEELwFIRE

Scarecrow Boat said:


> It's more of a culture thing. In a country like Canada playing for the national side in hockey is a huge deal while in GB half the hockey fans could give a **** about the national teams as they're satisfied watching imports come over from the ECHL & lower leagues to play in their domestic league, regardless of the effect on the homegrown player development.




True plus the British national hockey team is going nowhere. I don't think they've competed in division 1 in a zillion years!


----------



## Siamese Dream

BladesofSTEELwFIRE said:


> True plus the British national hockey team is going nowhere. I don't think they've competed in division 1 in a zillion years!




They've been in Division 1 ever since it has been called that


----------



## Siamese Dream

Scarecrow Boat said:


> It's more of a culture thing. In a country like Canada playing for the national side in hockey is a huge deal while in GB half the hockey fans could give a **** about the national teams as they're satisfied watching imports come over from the ECHL & lower leagues to play in their domestic league, regardless of the effect on the homegrown player development.




It's hilarious with the football, whenever England get knocked out of a major tournament everyone moans about foreigners in the EPL for about 2 days, then it's back to supporting clubs like Arsenal with their 1 English player in the starting 11 (if that)


----------



## Urbanskog

AlanHUK said:


> Considering their article on the NHL draft didn't bother mentioning a british born player was taken in the first round I think it might take a while for that to happen.




Nathan Walker (Australia) was born in Britain as well.


----------



## J17 Vs Proclamation

Propane Nightmares said:


> I can assure you, life for an ordinary person like myself life is much more comfortable in the United States than it is here, your money gets you a lot further.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, more than a century ago. The UK is now one of the most densely populated countries on the planet, with many big towns and cities, towns and cities = heat





Sweeping generalisations. It depends where you live and how you spend your money. Living in the Berkshire/Oxfordshire region for much of my life, it is an expensive life, with property prices being such that i'm probably not capable (at least in the next 15-20 years) to move onto the property ladder in the area (at least, onto anything i would consider acceptable). Yet, move away from this overpriced commutting hub and there are some very affordable, livable places. Yes, the UK is expensive, but context needs to be applied. 

An ordinary life in the UK isn't significantly worse than an ordinary life in the US. Define ordinary and it depends on the location. 

Secondly, the UK is extremely densely populated, but it's actually still fairly rural. A good portion of the population still lives in "ruralish" areas. Suburbs or urban sprawl s much different here to other places. London aside, England has no significant cities globally with no large populations. It's really exaggerated how many people live in the city city. 

Korea ... now Korea is densely populated. Smaller land mass, smaller population, but it has an astronomical % of it's population living in a few cities that are extremely close together. Those who live in the countryside aren't rich and they aren't overwhelming in numbers. Meanwhile, the UK has considerable wealth living on the verge of or outside the cities.

Finally, the UK has an extremely mild weather system. Why people moan about it i cannot comprehend, it's literally almost perfect. The Korean weather is just as cold, if not colder in winter, and exponentially hotter in the summer. You can argue that hockey isn't prevalent in the UK due to the absence of strong winter weather, but towns and cities = heat certainly isn't a meritious conclusion to anything.


----------



## Siamese Dream

J17 Vs Proclamation said:


> towns and cities = heat certainly isn't a meritious conclusion to anything.




Yes it is, many decades ago Britain used to get some quite harsh winters by our standards, with prolonged periods of cold temperatures and snow, now we're "lucky" to get a couple of days of snow a year. We haven't had a truly awful winter since the famous Winter of Discontent in the late 70's. Why? Massive population growth and the use of motor vehicles. A town doesn't have to even be that big to give off heat. Last year in Swindon there were massive starling murmurations over the town, they had come because it was too cold for them in the countryside


----------



## J17 Vs Proclamation

Propane Nightmares said:


> Yes it is, many decades ago Britain used to get some quite harsh winters by our standards, with prolonged periods of cold temperatures and snow, now we're "lucky" to get a couple of days of snow a year. We haven't had a truly awful winter since the famous Winter of Discontent in the late 70's. Why? Massive population growth and the use of motor vehicles. A town doesn't have to even be that big to give off heat. Last year in Swindon there were massive starling murmurations over the town, they had come because it was too cold for them in the countryside




British weather is still extremely moderate, with no strong changes at either end of the spectrum. It may be getting warmer, but how is this point related to anything hockey wise? It's not siginificantly warmer and it certainly doesn't detract from sport participation of hockey.


Furthermore, having lived between Reading and Oxford for the majority of my life (working and socialising in both), i can tell you the winters are still cold enough, the summers variably enough.

Not that i entirely understand what point you were originally trying to make, but the points of attack used to support it are a little hyperbolic or imply naivety relative to conditions elsewhere. Certainly an ordinary fellow in the United States certainly doesn't have much, if at all, of a better life than someone residing in the UK. Each faces their own set of difficult circumstances.


----------



## Siamese Dream

J17 Vs Proclamation said:


> British weather is still extremely moderate, with no strong changes at either end of the spectrum. It may be getting warmer, but how is this point related to anything hockey wise? It's not siginificantly warmer and it certainly doesn't detract from sport participation of hockey.
> 
> 
> Furthermore, having lived between Reading and Oxford for the majority of my life (working and socialising in both), i can tell you the winters are still cold enough, the summers variably enough.
> 
> Not that i entirely understand what point you were originally trying to make, but the points of attack used to support it are a little hyperbolic or imply naivety relative to conditions elsewhere. Certainly an ordinary fellow in the United States certainly doesn't have much, if at all, of a better life than someone residing in the UK. Each faces their own set of difficult circumstances.




It's related to the point that apparently ice hockey was invented in Britain and played on frozen lakes, which don't become frozen anymore. Like I said in my lifetime it has only happened once, when a few years ago we were able to travel to somewhere in Oxfordshire to skate on a lake that did freeze, maybe you know the place. Yes many lakes do freeze over a little bit sometimes, but the ice is never thick enough to be safe to skate on. 

The comparison in standard of living between the US and the UK is not relevant to hockey, it's just a response to someone who said that the UK is the wealthier country, which is just incorrect no matter what facts you look at, though it is true that there is greater income inequality in the US.


----------



## J17 Vs Proclamation

Propane Nightmares said:


> It's related to the point that apparently ice hockey was invented in Britain and played on frozen lakes, which don't become frozen anymore. Like I said in my lifetime it has only happened once, when a few years ago we were able to travel to somewhere in Oxfordshire to skate on a lake that did freeze, maybe you know the place. Yes many lakes do freeze over a little bit sometimes, but the ice is never thick enough to be safe to skate on.




No, skating in ponds has never been a thing, at least where i'm from. 

I have no opinion or information to add on what hockey was like relative to the climate in 1930. Having frozen lakes or not wouldn't change particularly much now, either way.



Propane Nightmares said:


> The comparison in standard of living between the US and the UK is not relevant to hockey, it's just a response to someone who said that the UK is the wealthier country, which is just incorrect no matter what facts you look at, though it is true that there is greater income inequality in the US.




The income equality divide in the UK is pretty severe, if i recall, thought i do not possess any stats on hand. Though income inequality is only one small measurement when having a conversation like this. Both countries have a plethora of similar and different socioeconomic and politics issues, none of which have any real influence on ice hockey. The grass is always greener though i guess ....

Money is great and all, but it needs to be used efficiently.


----------



## Shrimper

Propane Nightmares said:


> It's hilarious with the football, whenever England get knocked out of a major tournament everyone moans about foreigners in the EPL for about 2 days, then it's back to supporting clubs like Arsenal with their 1 English player in the starting 11 (if that)




Arsenal aren't the best example to use.

Also, I can't help but read your posts in Alan Partridge's voice.


----------



## Siamese Dream

Shrimper said:


> Arsenal aren't the best example to use.
> 
> Also, I can't help but read your posts in Alan Partridge's voice.




I haven't followed football closely for years, but they always used to never have English players, but I see now they have Wilshere, Walcott and Oxlade-Chamberlain


----------



## Shrimper

Propane Nightmares said:


> I haven't followed football closely for years, but they always used to never have English players, but I see now they have Wilshere, Walcott and Oxlade-Chamberlain




Wilshere, Walcott, The Ox, Gibbs, Jenkinson and if we include UK then Ramsay.


----------



## BladesofSTEELwFIRE

Propane Nightmares said:


> They've been in Division 1 ever since it has been called that




Sorry, I meant the main division that goes to IIHF World Championships every year. I have NEVER seen them in that group and you know they'd be killed if they were in it. I bet Japan could even beat Great Britain.


----------



## Siamese Dream

BladesofSTEELwFIRE said:


> Sorry, I meant the main division that goes to IIHF World Championships every year. I have NEVER seen them in that group and you know they'd be killed if they were in it. I bet Japan could even beat Great Britain.




Have you come to contribute to the thread or to tell us how crap we are?


----------



## 3 Minute Minor

BladesofSTEELwFIRE said:


> Sorry, I meant the main division that goes to IIHF World Championships every year. I have NEVER seen them in that group and you know they'd be killed if they were in it. I bet Japan could even beat Great Britain.




Do you have something against Japan, racist?


----------



## BladesofSTEELwFIRE

Scarecrow Boat said:


> Do you have something against Japan, racist?




LOL..how is that racist against Japan?? I said Japan could BEAT Britain.


----------



## 3 Minute Minor

BladesofSTEELwFIRE said:


> LOL..how is that racist against Japan?? I said Japan could BEAT Britain.




That is what we call a "backhanded compliment"


----------



## Ryker

BladesofSTEELwFIRE said:


> LOL..how is that racist against Japan?? I said Japan could BEAT Britain.



Well, yeah, but why are you stating the obvious? You seem to not be following what's going on in Division I, otherwise you'd have noticed what Japan has done in the past and what they're doing now in terms of their on-ice performance. If you paid more attention, you'd also have noticed their IIHF world ranking is ahead of Great Britain at the moment.

And I believe you said _even_ Japan could beat Britain.


----------



## varsaku

I got the numbers from http://www.iihf.com/iihf-home/the-iihf/survey-of-players/
Its 2013 numbers

Great Britain
Population: 63,395,574
Total Registered Players: 6,798
Senior Registered Players: 2,289
U20 Registered Players: 3,815
Female Registered Players: 694
Male Referees: 292
Female Referees: 27
Indoor Rinks: 84
Outdoor Rinks: 0

France
Population: 65,951,611
Total Registered Players: 18,041
Senior Registered Players: 6,763
U20 Registered Players: 10,022
Female Registered Players: 1,256
Male Referees: 99
Female Referees: 7
Indoor Rinks: 124
Outdoor Rinks: 5

I feel the best way to grow a sport is getting more kids to start playing the sport. These pro teams in Great Britain and France need to spend more on youth squads or set up a youth hockey program. They need to market the sport more by getting it in the media more often.


----------



## 3 Minute Minor

More youth in GB will just result in more youth in GB being developed poorly... and the few quality kids will still be mismanaged once they get to senior hockey because they don't understand how to develop players.


----------



## varsaku

Scarecrow Boat said:


> More youth in GB will just result in more youth in GB being developed poorly... and the few quality kids will still be mismanaged once they get to senior hockey because they don't understand how to develop players.




Most of the EIHL head coaches are Canadians. I am pretty sure they can get some former CHL players to coach the youth squad or minor league teams. They can bring the training techniques the Canadian major junior leagues use. With the number of players going through CHL, I bet there will be a few willing to move and become a coach. I pretty sure they can find people who are willing to take a lower salary so they can continue to be a part of hockey. So these teams won't have to break the bank to get a youth squad going.


----------



## 3 Minute Minor

varsaku said:


> Most of the EIHL head coaches are Canadians. I am pretty sure they can get some former CHL players to coach the youth squad or minor league teams. They can bring the training techniques the Canadian major junior leagues use. With the number of players going through CHL, I bet there will be a few willing to move and become a coach. I pretty sure they can find people who are willing to take a lower salary so they can continue to be a part of hockey. So these teams won't have to break the bank to get a youth squad going.




There are tons of opportunities for youth coaches in Canada though. Why would a young coach choose to leave home, where their teams are more competitive and have more resources to work with, to coach to in a country where hockey is often at the bottom of the sport totem pole?


----------



## Siamese Dream

varsaku said:


> Most of the EIHL head coaches are Canadians. I am pretty sure they can get some former CHL players to coach the youth squad or minor league teams. They can bring the training techniques the Canadian major junior leagues use. With the number of players going through CHL, I bet there will be a few willing to move and become a coach. I pretty sure they can find people who are willing to take a lower salary so they can continue to be a part of hockey. So these teams won't have to break the bank to get a youth squad going.




Yes, most are Canadians and PLAYER COACHES, hired to SAVE MONEY because they can't even afford one extra guy on a payroll

And you think clubs will splash out extra cash for coaches for their youth system (which many of them aren't actually attached to as part of one organisation)?


----------



## 3 Minute Minor

Propane Nightmares said:


> Yes, most are Canadians and PLAYER COACHES, hired to SAVE MONEY because they can't even afford one extra guy on a payroll
> 
> And you think clubs will splash out extra cash for coaches for their youth system (*which many of them aren't actually attached to as part of one organisation*)?




I still think the day that changes is the day things start turning around... worked for Sweden.

Senior clubs look after everything top to bottom and rely on developing their homegrowns rather than buying 11 Johnny ECHLers every year and ignoring their own guys.


Unfortunately the majority of the GB hockey community can't see more than 1 issue at a time.


----------



## Siamese Dream

Scarecrow Boat said:


> I still think the day that changes is the day things start turning around... worked for Sweden.
> 
> Senior clubs look after everything top to bottom and rely on developing their homegrowns rather than buying 11 Johnny ECHLers every year and ignoring their own guys.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the majority of the GB hockey community can't see more than 1 issue at a time.




Soon to be 12 and then 13 Johnny ECHLers


----------



## 3 Minute Minor

Propane Nightmares said:


> Soon to be 12 and then 13 Johnny ECHLers




Turns out they only folded BISL so they could rename the league without the word "British" & then remove the Brits.


----------



## BladesofSTEELwFIRE

Ryker said:


> Well, yeah, but why are you stating the obvious? You seem to not be following what's going on in Division I, otherwise you'd have noticed what Japan has done in the past and what they're doing now in terms of their on-ice performance. If you paid more attention, you'd also have noticed their IIHF world ranking is ahead of Great Britain at the moment.
> 
> And I believe you said _even_ Japan could beat Britain.




You know the conventional wisdom is Euro teams are much better than Asian teams at ice hockey. So I just gave it some emphasis that in this case the Asian team is clearly better!


----------

