Newcastle to join EIHL

[Shaggy]

MP said:

Can't see Edinburgh looking to join the EIHL at the moment - they are struggling in the BNL so are more likely to step down than up I'd have thought.

Dunno about that......

They are struggling a bit on-ice perhaps..... but IF (and this is a big 'if') IF the BNL has as many organisational, financial and political problems as has been heard from various well-informed sources, then - yes, they may well end up being better off in the EIHL. One thing that I'm told the EIHL do that the BNL don't (as far as I'm aware, anyway) is that each club apparently pays in a certain percentage of its takings into a central fund which is used to help out those clubs in need. If that is the case (and I've no reason to doubt it) then Edinburgh could well be better off in the EIHL - and if it came to pass that all of the BNL clubs 'came over', then they would not only gain the potentially-larger away fan attendances from the likes of us, Sheffield, Coventry etc - but would retain the away attendances from their local rivals of Fife and Dundee!

All of which could mean more money to spend on more/better players, and the likelihood of them being able to compete on equal terms with the rest of us.

[jps]

I cant for one see the EIHL doing any team any favours.

The bitter wrangle of the summmer before last where the BNL openly wanted the demise of the ISL/EIHL will be too fresh in the memmory.

I think they may cherry pick teams to join the EIHL eg Bracknell and Newcastle but let the rest find their own way.

With Manchester a 10 team league would be ideal, playing eachother 3 home and away with a 56 game reg season would be great.

Certainly the owners of Guildford and fife are not popular with the EIHL hierarchy

[Samxpenguin]

Shaggy said:

Disagree.
Our games against Hull, Fife and Guildford were well attended - the Edinburgh game wasn't attended too well, but then midweek games rarely are.
And Fife, Guildford and Hull all brought easily as many fans as we normally see from Basingstoke, Belfast and London - if not more!

Yet, our games against Hull, fife and Guildford where not aswell,and certainly wouldn't be over a season as the games against Cardiff, Belfast and Coventry. I look forward to the latter teams much more than games against the BNL teams this year. However, the reasons these games bring more people in is not mainly due to away fans...its due to the Standards of team. No one would choose to watch a walkover match against a lesser team liek Edinburgh, than a tight competitive game against a team such as Belfast.

I am very happy Newcastle have stated an aim to be in the EIHL as i won't be in Nottingham next year, but as Newcastle is one of my favourite choices for University i could well still get to watch top flight Ice Hockey ;D (same for Edinburgh if they did-which i doubt they will-join the EIHL). So for me, thats very very good news ;D

[Shaggy]

JPS said:

I cant for one see the EIHL doing any team any favours.

The bitter wrangle of the summmer before last where the BNL openly wanted the demise of the ISL/EIHL will be too fresh in the memmory.

I think they may cherry pick teams to join the EIHL eg Bracknell and Newcastle but let the rest find their own way.

With Manchester a 10 team league would be ideal, playing eachother 3 home and away with a 56 game reg season would be great.

Certainly the owners of Guildford and fife are not popular with the EIHL hierarchy

"The BNL" may have wanted the demise of the EIHL/ISL - that doesn't necessarily mean that the individual teams did. It is interesting that you specifically refer to the owners of Guildford and Fife, since - rightly or wrongly - they are seen by many as being the ones who control the BNL.... with other clubs allegedly having to knuckle under.

If you want an EIHL analogy..... He Who Shall Not Be Named from Them Up The M1 ( ) has made a few comments that have infuriated various BNL people, and the decision to have a couple of games played in the smaller pad was not exactly greeted with smiles - yet the EIHL appears to be totally in favour of the crossover competition. So..... sometimes club and league don't move as one. Same with this situation, I suspect.

As for letting other teams "find their own way" - what way? What other way would there be? Take, as you suggest, Bracknell and Newcastle out of the BNL, and you have 5 teams. The ISL barely limped along like that for a year - and was totally unviable for any longer period with only 5 teams.

I for one would hope that the EIHL would not react so supidly, short-sightedly and vindictively if teams such as Edinburgh applied to join the league. I would hope that the EIHL would judge each application purely upon its own seperate merits.

Having said that, look at it this way......
IF the EIHL wanted to truly shaft it to the BNL.... would they not want to blag as many teams from the league as possible, and thus make the BNL totally unviable? Personally, I would hope that they wouldn't think that way - but either way, the Edinburgh application could well be judged favourably......

[Magpie]

while i welcome the move by the Vipers, i have reservations about what will become of the rest of the BNL teams,
excluding Edinburgh on account they have resigned from the league
what of the likes of Dundee Stars and Hull Stingrays! somehow i can't see them being welcomed with open arms by the majority of the EIHL teams and fans,
which would be a shame in my book as those 2 teams have some of the most loyal fans in Hockey and deserve their place at the top table, whether or not they could afford to or compete in the EIHL is another question,

[Cunndies]

JPS said:

I cant for one see the EIHL doing any team any favours.

The bitter wrangle of the summmer before last where the BNL openly wanted the demise of the ISL/EIHL will be too fresh in the memmory.

I think they may cherry pick teams to join the EIHL eg Bracknell and Newcastle but let the rest find their own way.

With Manchester a 10 team league would be ideal, playing eachother 3 home and away with a 56 game reg season would be great.

Certainly the owners of Guildford and fife are not popular with the EIHL hierarchy

Well, that would be very short-sighted of them. It happened with the Superleague - the "other" teams were told to fend for themselves. Surely that mistake shouldn't be repeated, else we find ourselves 10 years back in time.

Screw vindictiveness - would you honestly want Guildford, Fife, Dundee and everybody else to just cease to exist? In Fife alone, that would be the loss of the oldest, most storied team in the country. That can't, and shouldn't be allowed to happen.

And just out of interest, what have the owners of Guildford and Fife done? I know all the rumours (key word here = RUMOURS), but also know that Fife are all for a merged league, and always have been, straight from the horses mouth, so to speak.

[BlackburnHawk]

I'm not sure whether this is good news or not.

On the face of it, it is, given that most of us on this Forum follow Panthers, and another team in the EIHL must be good.

I thought, though, that the IIHF (the anacronym might be wrong, but I mean the International lot !) were guiding IHUK in working towards a merger of the EIHL and the BNL. Even if that were to take some time, whilst finances etc. were being sorted out, then cross-over games could act as an interim stepping-stone (which have arguably been very successful this season thus far).

If Vipers join the EIHL, then the teams currently competing in the BNL are in a precarious position. Given that Edinburgh are resigning, destination unknown, then 5 teams' future are on the line. Joining the EIHL may not be an option for some or all of them. IF that's the case, then those clubs may have to call it a day.

IF that were to happen, then we are going back to the 'dark days' of the Superleague. Ice Hockey in Britain needs as many teams competing at the highest level possible, obviously within a strict financial framework. Whatever happens at the end of this season, someone has to make some realistic plans that does not see the demise of Guildford, Hull, Bracknell, Fife and Dundee. If they were to go, it would be a case of one step forward this season, but 3 or 4 steps backwards for the future.

[Shaggy]

Cunndies said:

Screw vindictiveness - would you honestly want Guildford, Fife, Dundee and everybody else to just cease to exist? In Fife alone, that would be the loss of the oldest, most storied team in the country. That can't, and shouldn't be allowed to happen.

Absolutely not.
We cannot afford to lose ANY team - and there is no way that through anybody's political vindictiveness any team should vanish.
Some might (with some justification) call it payback for the BNL's less-than-respectable attitude in the past (just as bad as the ISL, in my opinion) - but that would be petty, stupid and short-sighted, I believe.

[Wigwam]

I would love to welcome Newcastle Vipers/Jesters/Riverkings......or whatever they are called this week, back into our league. The MORE teams we have, the better as far as I am concerned. The Elite League, has shown it's stability, amid some of the fears shown by the likes of some (NIC for starters!). The more teams we can attract...the more likely we are to attract key sponsors, & TV coverage.
Not heard much regard Manchester Phoenix, has the NEW rink in Manchester even started to be built yet?

[texpef]

just as an aside i was under the impression the oldest club in the country was actually the Nottingham Panthers!! ;D

As for the future it seems the best possible outcome was going back pretty much to the days of the old heineken league and imho that would be no bad thing, as long as they can get someone as worthwhile as heineken to do the sponsoring.

[MP]

I reckon 10 teams is the practical limit for the EIHL in the current format. I wouldn't want to see the wage cap or import quota lowered much if at all for a season or two.

If Manchester, Newcastle and say Bracknell were all to join the EIHL then it would be good news for EIHL fans.

Assuming Edinburgh step down that leaves Fife, Dundee, Hull and Guilford up the creek somewhat. Would those teams be able/willing to compete to the EIHL budgets? I guess most of them wouldn't be too far adrift in financial terms but would a league of 14 teams be practicable? Major changes would be needed in the league structure I think and I'm not sure it could be done for next season.

I don't want to see any team fall by the wayside - they all have proud traditions and deserving fans. I'm just not clear as to the best way forward at the moment. Someone in authority needs to grasp the nettle sooner rather than later and address the issues, otherwise all the ingredients are there for another shambolic episode in British hockey.

[Shaggy]

If it did go to 14 teams, then IMHO a geographically-based conference system would be the way to go.
7 in the north, 7 in the south - you play inter-conference once each home and away, and intra-conference 3 times each home and away. That's 29 home games, 29 away - and 13 opposition teams PLUS a lot less in the way of travelling expenses. And it's easily expanded.

I know some people want a return to promotion-and-relegation, but on purely economic grounds, that surely wouldn't work.........

[texpef]

i cant see why promotion/relegation wouldnt work as natural gravity would have the weaker teams in the lower league and the teams that could afford more would be in the higher league so likelihood of teams going bust is limited. Also more teams means more interest and a relegation/promotion means teams have something to play for whichever end of the table you find your team in..

[Cunndies]

texpef said:

just as an aside i was under the impression the oldest club in the country was actually the Nottingham Panthers!! ;D

Alas no, we were formed in '38, you in '39. But that's off topic...

Shaggy's got it pretty much right on this one. We can't afford to lose any clubs at all - it would be disaster. A conference system sounds just dandy to me - so long as it's all under the one banner.

[Shaggy]

texpef said:

i cant see why promotion/relegation wouldnt work as natural gravity would have the weaker teams in the lower league and the teams that could afford more would be in the higher league so likelihood of teams going bust is limited. Also more teams means more interest and a relegation/promotion means teams have something to play for whichever end of the table you find your team in..

That's all very well.... but let's be realistic here. Too many teams skate on a financial knife-edge, right? Sponsorship and firm fan attendance is all that stands between them and oblivion. If one of them has a bad year on-ice, they get relegated. If that happens, sponsors are less likely to be interested or will offer less money (a 'lower' league/division has less status, right?) and there surely will be a fair few 'non-hardcore' fans who would be less interested in a team not in the top flight......

Maybe they'd survive anyway..... but maybe they wouldn't. Too big a risk IMHO.

[NevesMetro]

Shaggy said:

If it did go to 14 teams, then IMHO a geographically-based conference system would be the way to go.
7 in the north, 7 in the south - you play inter-conference once each home and away, and intra-conference 3 times each home and away. That's 29 home games, 29 away - and 13 opposition teams PLUS a lot less in the way of travelling expenses. And it's easily expanded.

That would be a great idea if it could work but one thing's for sure, boy would I like to be a fly on the wall for that meeting . It could take a hockey season itself (with more fights) just working out who goes in Group A and Who goes in Group B

[Shaggy]

NevesMetro said:

That would be a great idea if it could work but one thing's for sure, boy would I like to be a fly on the wall for that meeting . It could take a hockey season itself (with more fights) just working out who goes in Group A and Who goes in Group B

Well, I stupidly forgot Manchester (sorry guys!) so that would make 15... we'd have to have another - MK perhaps? Just for the sake of argument, let's assume Manchester and MK come in to make 16.

A quick GUESS as to a possible conference system:-
NORTH:-
Dundee
Edinburgh
Fife
Newcastle
Manchester
Hull
Sheffield
Belfast

SOUTH:-
London
Cardiff
Bracknell
Basingstoke
Guildford
MK
Coventry
Nottingham

Sensible geographical groupings, every team would still have local rivals within their conference (we'd have Coventry instead of Sheffield - put paid to the IMHO ridiculous assertion that we can't survive without playing them umpteen times per season) and we'd still host everyone else at least once.

Having typed all that, I suddenly thought - if we didn't get MK, we could still do it, but ona 3 conference system:-

NORTH:-
Dundee
Edinburgh
Fife
Belfast
Newcastle

CENTRAL:-
Manchester
Hull
Sheffield
Nottingham
Coventry

SOUTH:-
Cardiff
Bracknell
Basingstoke
London
Guildford.

Play inter-conference once each home-and-away, and intra-conference four times each home-and-away for a total of 26 home games?

Just a few thoughts........

[NevesMetro]

Shaggy I love the idea, I just don't know how it could work.
Sheffield and Nottingham will want to play each other 3 times whether we like it or not. It's the biggest crowd in uk hockey. Coventry will want to be with those two. I'd guess Belfast, Manchester (if they return) and Cardiff will want to play those teams at least 3 times and that leaves the rest playing musical chairs to get in with the big draws.
I just can't see the owner of the Cardiff Devils being told that they get one home game against Nottingham, Coventry, Belfast and Sheffield but you get four home games against Guildford. He'd walk out of the room.

I hope that someone comes up with something that includes everyone, doesn't reduce the standards of hockey and doesn't reduce the average attendance.

At the moment I'm sorry to say that I can't see it.

Though I must say at this moment in time everything is at the door of the BNL. I know that there is a ripple effect with Newcastle and Edinburgh dropping out but it's up to the BNL to try and sort out it's own ship before any other leagues get involved. Maybe they plan to bring up MKL and maybe Peterbro? I doubt it but who knows.
Cheers

[texpef]

ever since i have been watching hockey shaggy we have lost clubs and gained new ones (why i aint to bothered about losing teams like sheffield plus panthers had spells where they passed round the buckets) and some of those clubs where so-called bigger clubs at the time as well. This is the reality as you put it if clubs fold then they fold why try to hold up a dead dog? And if clubs support/sponsorship suffers because of on ice performances again makes me wonder whether that club is worth the bother if those involved with it arent bothered themselves.

Look at football and the number of times a club is "too big to go down" yet they do and they survive hockey is not as big granted but then again the running costs are alot less as well.

We are in England not America we have relegation/promotion not conferences, thats what English fans know and are comfortable with (and the English media too, which lets be honest in our minority sport is most important). Personally i feel that this would be the most easiest to sell to lay people outside the existing fan base and as such is the most simplest to set up rather than trying to decide who goes in what group and then trying to sort out fixtures on cros conference games.

[Ian]

Personally, I prefer a promotion and relegation system to conferences for several reasons.

Firstly, conferences pretty much mean that a "regular season championship" is irrelevant and does not show the best team over the course of the year, because they could be in a weaker conference and thus have played more of their games against weaker opposition. So no genuine "league title" anymore.

Second, as Texpef rightly argues, it increases the interest right up to the end of the season at all positions in the table - battling for the title, battling for a playoff place or battling to avoid relegation in the top division and fighting for a playoff/promotion spot in the second tier. Got to be good for attendances - the ISL/EIHL "everybody makes the playoffs and nobody goes down" formula has resulted in some of the most sterile, meaningless end of season "games" I have ever witnessed in my 25 years as a hockey fan.

Finally, the argument about fans/sponsors/media losing interest if a team is not in the top division. Sorry, but I disagree. I think fan interest will be maintained for the reasons I mentioned above. The feeling that they won't seems to be based on the (perhaps correct, perhaps not) assumption that if a so-called big club went down (Panthers or Steelers for example) their non-die hard fans wouldn't bother. Shaggy, you make this argument on the one hand but then repeatedly tell us that the fact that these clubs need to play one another plenty of times is a myth. You can't have it both ways. Yes, some clubs might lose some fans initially - but if they regrouped and were fighting their way back up, playing successful hockey then the numbers would come back. People would surely sooner see a successful team at the top of the second division than a moribund, struggling team losing heavily at the bottom of the first week in and week out? The same applies to generating media interest and sponsorship to some extent. OK, so the reverse could happen if a team luckily got promoted then spent a season getting hammered, but if there is a stable financial structure at league and club level, there is no real reason for the gap to be that wide.

When all said and done, at present we seem to have a two-league system where a few clubs keep going at the perceived "top" level and others keep going at the perceived "second" level. You then have other clubs who either move between the two depending on their current financial stability (Coventry, Newcastle, Bracknell, Cardiff for example) and others who have to pack up completely on various occasions. A genuine two division league would probably not change this much in practical terms, but what it would do would bring everyone under the same banner, help to put in place a stable, sustainable financial structure, provide a platform to attract sponsorship and media interest and allow teams to evolve and go through strong or lean times without having to lose them from the map or rearrange the entire structure of the game when things go wrong for one or two clubs. And that is what we are ultimately aiming for.

[MP]

Rocks and hard places come to mind.

Alien though it is I prefer the conference system over two straight divisions but getting the composition of the conferences right would be problematic. A 3 conference format doesn't appeal though.

However, we are getting ahead of ourselves. The EIHL has made a promising start from its' troubled beginings and maintaining stability is surely one of their main concerns. The addition of 3 more teams shouldn't cause the Elite League any problems, would perhaps approach their ideal format regarding variety and competitiveness. So the EIHL can sit back and await developments.

The BNL on the other hand seem to be heading into a very awkward position. If Newcastle and Edinburgh both quit then what options have they got?

A 5 team league isn't viable so at least 2 new teams would be required. The likes of Peterborough could step up but they may not choose to given the additional financial demands that would incurr.
If teams can't be found to step up to the BNL then one option would be for the BNL to lower it's standard to make it more attractive to teams with less financial clout, which would be a real blow for its' current members.
A merger with a lower division would seem to be the only other alternative.

Whichever way you look at it, the people who run the BNL have some serious thinking to do, as do IHUK if an outcome that is beneficial to the sport as a whole is to be achieved.

Who knows, perhaps the EIHL will be pegged at 8 teams for next season whilst the details of a merger are sorted out for the following season.

Perhaps there is still enough time to sort out a merger for next season though past history suggests that is fancifull.

[ktglitz]

For the record Edinburgh will be making a statement in a few days time in response to being named in the Newcastle PR.

[Samxpenguin]

I would much prefer a promotion and relegation system, mainly for the reasons outlined by Ian and Teflex.

I don't like the idea of conferences, I think a 2-league promotion system would be far more interesting and exiting. It would mean playing right to the end of the season, less 'meaningless' games and also would overall mean a more level standard of hockey in each league than there would be in conferences. You wouldn't have games likes Thursday night where the result was in no doubt even before face-off (no disrespect to Edinburgh meant there). This system would attract new fans, and keep regular fans interested. New fans would see the more conventional system ther used too in British sport and relate to it. People who have no idea about Ice hockey and ice told them about the 'cross conference' have just looked at me very confused. Another thing would be a level playing field where each game would arguably be far closer than conference teams where the wages available for some teams would be far lower than available to others. This obviously might not occur, but in my mind in the 2 league system it would be more likely.

I also have to Strongly dissagree with Shaggy, we do need Sheffield in the same League as Nottingham (i know this isn't guaranteed in a Promotion system), how do you think Neil Black would react if told we only played Sheffield once a season, also how do you think fans would react? Most fans look forward to these games more than any over the season, they bring the biggest crowds, the best atmosphere.

Whatever, the outcome of British Ice Hockey no system can guarantee a regular fanbase, team sponsership and financial stability. I can see the argument that a relegation system would de-stablaise teams (as in Football, eg. Nottm Forest), but i think if the leagues are set up sensibly this can be restricted to a minimum, and whos to say a conference league would not result in the same conclusion? If a team continues to be bottom of there conference surely they are as likely to lose support or sponsership deals as a relegated team?

Another point would be, if this system ever came around, how would you first decide who was in each division? Now that will cause a lot of arguments, as it would no doubt be impossible to go on previous years results, and many teams would desire to be in the higher league.

As MP states, we are getting abit ahead of ourselves considering this, but with the BNL looking very fragile at the moment, there may have to be HUGE decision made within British Ice Hockey sooner rather than later. Lets hope it works out

ps. Anyone have any idea what the average Newcastle attendances are?

[KimThePanther]

Taken from www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/

PACK: STINGRAYS MAY CONSIDER ELITE LEAGUE OPTION

Excel Hull Stingrays could find themselves playing in the Elite League next season - if Newcastle are accepted into ice hockey's top flight for 2005-06.

Fed-up Vipers will fulfil their current fixture list, but have tendered their resignation from the British National League and applied to join the Elite League.

With Edinburgh also reported to be on the move, it could mean Stingrays facing just four BNL teams - Bracknell, Guildford, Fife and Dundee.

It leaves Stingrays' owner Mike Pack, his wife Sue, and coach Rick Strachan discussing the club's next move in what may precipitate the long hoped-for merger between the two leagues.

Pack said: "A seven-team BNL is the minimum for sustainability, so you can draw your own conclusions.

"I've always been consistent in stating all professional teams have to go forward under one structure, one management and one playing structure.

"I don't care what it's called and at the moment I'm not that worried about whether it's one league or two conferences."

Asked whether Stingrays would make an application to the EL, Pack would only say: "Sue, Rick and I need to act quickly and decide what our options are.

"We want to play professional ice hockey at the highest level the club will sustain.

"Our track record this season has proved that is at the top level," referring to Stingrays beating EL Sheffield, Coventry and London.

Illingworth announced his intentions at last month's BNL management meeting which means the news is not a bolt out of the blue.

It is Vipers' decision to go public now, against a back-drop of very successful crossover matches between the two leagues this season, which has rocked the boat.

Pack explained: "I was aware Darryl was looking to the future, but I'm surprised at the timing of the statements from Newcastle.

"It really does not help the well-being of our hockey club going forward this season.

"It's ironic as all the indications are we are moving in the right direction in terms of playing strength and results and we are certainly looking to break even next season.

"At the moment, though, our fans need to concentrate on what's turning out to be a great season for the Stingrays, and let me worry about the future."

[NevesMetro]

Maybe it's getting to the point where all the BNL teams just come across under the Elite banner and they run it just the same as this year.
2 leagues, Same teams (except maybe Newcastle and Basingstoke, always thought the Bracknell-Basingstoke rivalry was a decent one and of course Manchester ;D)One home and one away cross over game. Different wage cap, basically the same but with one big cup comp, With a view to create something good a couple of years down the line.
But would all BNL owners go for that and is it too simple to work?