2009 Women's Division III, IV and V all Cancelled!
Does anyone know what has happened to the Division III, IV, V tournaments. on 29th September, these were removed from the IIHF List of tournaments on their page at http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/c...pionships.html AND their pdf at http://www.iihf.com/fileadmin/user_u...of_Events2.pdf
Anyone heard anything?
Last edited by Carpo; 02-10-2008 at 14:35.
Well, some looking at the national teams websites (specifically Poland and Latvia) would indicate that something went down at the congress. The polish translation went on about how they couldn't find hosts for Division III and IV, so it looks as if all three have been cancelled.
I suppose that would make sense, if nobody will agree to host the tournament.
You can't expect Finland to host every low-division women's tournament every year. Really unfortunate though...
I guess this means that the 6th team in Division 2 will get another year in that division...
I've asked the question, but since GB are in Division2, I suspect that we probably don't really know the answer in this country. But, since we are the 6th seed in Division 2, it does have some implication for us.
Graham.
"It's very hard to talk quantum using a language originally designed to tell other monkeys where the ripe fruit is."
---
"Night Watch", Terry Pratchett
This is a bit of a blow for the development of womens ice hockey in the less competitive nations. I've not heard any feedback from NZ womens players as I've been away on holiday, but I'd imagine they'd be quite disappointed, as they have fiercely contested the Div 4 champs for the past few years, hoping to promote.
And so, it was confimed,in the new issue of IceTimes...
SWITZERLAND There was good news and bad
news for women’s hockey from the IIHF Semi-Annual
Congress in September. The good news is that the World
Women’s U18 Championship held last year for the first
time was such a success that it has been expanded to
include a Division I tournament as well. France will host
the inaugural event, while Germany will play host to the
top division.
The downside for the women’s championship program
was the deletion, at least for this season, of all Women’s
World Championships below Division II. Initially, it was
planned to go through Division V, but it was determined
that the potential participating nations would prefer to
have more time develop their budding national team
programs before playing in a championship.
I don't see how that should effect the established national teams and Divisions III and IV. I don't think New Zealand wants time to develop, they are ready to promote now.Originally Posted by Carpo
Bringing ice hockey to Northwest China!
I'm thehole formerly known as KazakhEagles
I think it is just "positive" spin on a situation created through a lack of willing hosts...
Graham.
"It's very hard to talk quantum using a language originally designed to tell other monkeys where the ripe fruit is."
---
"Night Watch", Terry Pratchett
Big disappointment for NZ
as one of the NZ players who has competed in the 2005,07 and 08 world Div 4 champs, it is really frustrating to see this happen. I can see that it is difficult for some countries to host these tournaments, but if each country had a turn then the financial pressures are less, NZ hosted in 2005, and Romania (kudos to you) 2007 and 2008.
Also if the IIHF could come up with some sort of action plan to support these lower divisions, for example NZ needs this tournament as their only hope of improving their standards is to compete against these international sides of similar levels. The only country close by is Australia and as their team has just been relegated to Div 3 it is hard to arrange games against them due to their level being higher they are I am sure reluctant to do this.
NZ has indeed as mentioned in the previous posts been high contenders to promote, 2005 losing to winning team just 5-2, in 2007 they lost to the winning team by one goal and then to ROmania by 1 goal. and last year were hot favourites until the Iceland team snatched it away with some superb goal tending.
So yes indeed as a player I am very disappointed, and also I am now asst coach for TUrkish national team in the same division, so a double disappointment for me as the TUrkish team this year is much improved with 4 foreign players now playing in the Turkish league helping the girls to develop.
Solution, I really dont think there is any easy solution for this - but an alternative would be to have some sort of regional tournament, ie Balkan Cup for Turkey, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Estonia, Croatia etc - maybe Asia/Pacific cup for Australia, Sth Korea, NZ, and perhaps Sth Africa could also join. But for the other teams like Ireland, Poland, Spain, and Im not sure who else off the top of my head, I dont know.
But please people get your thinking caps on, all countries, all players, all officials and IIHF members and come up with a good solution for this problem, the players and countries need this international competition to keep developing and improving the level of play, and also to keep players in the sport, if no incentive maybe they will quit.
anyway thats my thoughts :)
I would go further. If the IIHF is serious about its remit to develop the worldwide game, then these nations should not be made to pick up the bill. Particularly since these are the nations that are most likely to not be able to make money since their own games in the tournament will be poorly attended, too.
Can anyone think of something done in the last few years where the IIHF have really invested in the worldwide development of the game?
Graham.
"It's very hard to talk quantum using a language originally designed to tell other monkeys where the ripe fruit is."
---
"Night Watch", Terry Pratchett
They convinced SHLBIH to host last year's Men's Division III Qualification, does that count?
While the costs involved would stress the non-Big 5 nations, I still think the women's world championships should be held during Olympic years. With the cancellation, 16 nations won't get a chance to play until 2011 instead of 2009. The Division V teams were badly screwed as they had a host and everything would have been green-lighted.
Bringing ice hockey to Northwest China!
I'm the
Wow.....reading all this bad news over the past couple of days...
Somehow the IIHF needs to look at how they distribute funding for these events....
They are currently trying to make the Champions League worth something by offering a big prize, but is that at the risk of a lack of funding to the lower tier of nations.....?
[cynic]or perhaps the IIHF directors, council members etc should all take pay-cuts to help re-direct funds to the lower nations...[/cynic]
Or is this sport simply to expensive for it's own good?
Unless the IIHF actually paid for the event, it's not exactly a commitment, is it? It seems to me that they act more as a mediator than a promoter in these lower league tournemants.
I completely agree, which is why I say that the IIHF should use money generated in the top-level tournaments to ensure that the lower-level tournaments happen.
What funding? As far as I am aware, there is no funding from the IIHF for any World Championship tournament. When GB hosted the u20 Division 1 Worlds, Ice Hockey UK lost something like £18,000 on the tournament. To put that into context, the ISL is believed to have owed £40,000 to Ice Hockey UK when it folded and that was enough to stop Britain sending a team to the Olympic Qualifiers.
Graham.
"It's very hard to talk quantum using a language originally designed to tell other monkeys where the ripe fruit is."
---
"Night Watch", Terry Pratchett
The IIHF does compensate lower nations for hosting tournaments, but it's only partial compensation and in the case of U20, U18 and women's tournaments the compensation amounts to roughly one-half to one-third of the compensation amount for hosting a senior tournament (with identical, or nearly identical, expenses). So at the lowest levels where attendance is likely to be miniscule even for home games, and sponsorship is thus nonexistent, the national federations stand to lose substantial amounts of money (leading to many of them deciding not to host).
IMO, these are the touranments that should be compensated MOST, not least. Hockey's strength is in its diversity. We've seen a winter sport grow to the point where it is played in many nations that would never see anything remotely like winter conditions, and I think the IIHF is missing the boat by not actively promoting the sport in these nations (in this case by making it monetarily possible for them to actually host an international tournament. what better promotion for the sport is there than to say "hey, we've got the World Championships coming!")
This year is a miserable failure, and the IIHF needs to take a look at how it handles the championships. Cancelling tournaments is not the way to go.
good idea, but its utopia. all mentioned conutries didnt even want to organise IIHF WC, so i dont see why will they host some tournament.
p.s. you cant put cro/hun, estonia and turkey to the same regionand if you did it, why then to exclude poland, which is closer to all named countries than turkey.
p.s.s. IIHF was celebrating 100 years, but they didnt invest a dime in a hockey around planet. they need to work hard to promote this game around the world, but they dont do a thing. for them mens top division is enough. they are by far the cheapest sports organisation.
I'm not so sure it is. If you play regional tournaments, how do you then get them to step up to a World level? If the IIHF is serious about global growth, then they should be encouraging (read organising and funding) multiple tournaments throughout the year. You should have the regional tournaments so that new nations have something that they can test the water with first against teams who are also playing in the lower leagues at World Championships (e.g. the Asian games rather than the humiliation suffered by the Bulgarian women in the Olympic qualifiers).
While I have no doubt that the IIHF would argue that they can't organise mid-season tournaments because the federations want to be in control themselves. And that would certainly be true for the major nations. But, Sweden, Finland, Russia and the Czech Republic don't need any help to grow their sport. However, Ireland, Spain and Mexico, do, and I think that the IIHF have a tendency to hide behind a statement of "federations don't want us to do it" because it is easier when what they should be doing is forcing those countries to buy into their "make hockey a global sport" ethos by ensuring that national teams are able to play more than once a year. And, as we are seeing this year, it is going to be a couple of years now until some of these teams get to play again.
Graham.
"It's very hard to talk quantum using a language originally designed to tell other monkeys where the ripe fruit is."
---
"Night Watch", Terry Pratchett
Thanks, I always thought that the IIHF subsidized all their tournaments (to varying extents)....
FIFA seems to be doing a good job ....
The FIFA U17 Womens Football tournament was recently held in New Zealand - and the tournament was an excellent example of a well supported event - by both FIFA and New Zealand.
A great example of how FIFA are growing the sport (even more...)
Official site
http://www.fifa.com/u17womensworldcup/index.html
Some commentary on the spectator numbers at the event in NZ :-)
The dramatic final between two powerhouses of women’s football was a fitting way to end a tournament that captured the imagination of the New Zealand public, with a crowd of 16,162 pushing the tournament’s total to 212, 504, dwarfing the 52,630 that watched the 2006 U-20 Women’s World Cup in Russia.
After thinking about this, I'm still not sure. I agree that the IIHF does have a responsiblity, but then so does the national governing bodies, to actually host the events, and the problem is that it's always a battle to get it done.
That being said, it *can* be a success. The Divsion III tournament in Hungary in April certaintly was, with good attendances for the evening games every single night (especially, and with the greatest of respect, considering the poor performance of the Hungarian team)
I think that was is required, is a real understand from the entire community, so both the IIHF and the national federations to agree to pick up the tournaments. I just feel for the nations that have missed out, and rather selfishly am really glad that GB got prompted back in April!
But, if you can't host these tournaments without making a loss, then you have to ask whether the money you are losing could be better utilised elsewhere in your overall hockey programme. Particularly in such fragile hockey economies as we see at this level.
I know that both the u20 and Women's Worlds that Britain hosted both lost a five figure sum (£16k for the u20 I seem to recall). Considering the state of British hockey, was that the most worthwhile use of that money? It would actually have cost Ice Hockey UK less money to have sent the team to another host in Europe than to have hosted themselves. Surely the absolute minimum a host should be asked to pay is comparable costs to travelling to another host?
But, how much money did Hungary lose by hosting? After all, the IIHF figures show that the year before that Sheffield had a better attendance than Mikolsc did. And yet, Ice Hockey UK still weren't able to avoid a significant loss which I would argue is the only true measurement of success of a tournament.
If you are to enforce national federations to host without any guarantee to pick up any financial loss, then some rule needs to be set up that dictates who will host rather than requests hosts. If you aren't going to help cover the cost of hosting enough (and the IIHF clearly doesn't or we wouldn't be having this conversation) then you need to ensure a fair and even spread of hosting so that everyone can budget for an expensive season every 6 years. Otherwise, you are left with the situation we have now; a sparodic tournament that only happens when one of the nations decides to be charitable.
Graham.
"It's very hard to talk quantum using a language originally designed to tell other monkeys where the ripe fruit is."
---
"Night Watch", Terry Pratchett
W-iihf
The solution is that women players in countries like NZ, Australia etc who's Worlds is canceled, holds a small conference about starting W-IIHF. Invite Cammi Granato, Wickenheiser and a couple other "names" and you will never again experience the cancellation of a womens tournament!
If there were a W-IIHF I am sure they would find a jointly solution so all countries had their Worlds. The top Worlds for women gives a nice profit when it is held in Canada, or the USA if it is , as it always is, close to the border (at least half of the spectators are Canadians)! These money (the IIHF part) should be made available for the lower devisions.
Another solution is that the participating teams share the loss/profit.
The current situation is unacceptable and the IIHF is a male dominated joke as it is now...
Sorry, but you are massively over-estimating the draw that these players have in these marginal hockey markets. To be honest, you could invite Crosby and Ovechkin and still wouldn't see any change as these names only mean something to those who are already in the sport.
I'm afraid that I really can't agree with you here. It is not only women who have been affected here as the men's u20 have seen their Division 3 disappear this season and there was clearly a strong possibility that the u20 Division 2 was also going to go the same way considering how late in the season it was before all the hosts were announced.
This is nothing to do with men versus women. This is entirely down to a lack of support for all non-traditional hockey markets by the IIHF regardless of sex or age group.
The top worlds for all age groups and sexes is profitable. However, making the teams share profit and loss will make the rich richer and the poor poorer, exaggerating the gaps that already exist in the rankings. How could you propose a set-up where the poorest countries are the ones who are expected to pay to attend while the richest countries are paid to attend?
If you ask the Bulgarian federation to share the guaranteed loss of the Women's Division 5 tournaments, all you will do is ensure that Bulgaria never send a team to a women's world championship.
The only acceptable solution in my eyes is that the IIHF take complete ownership of the tournaments instead of "franchising" them out to the national federations, with a fee paid to the host nation to make hosting attractive. That way, profit and loss can be spread over all of the groups, divisions, age groups and sexes.
I would also argue that membership of the IIHF should carry a membership fee that covers all of your participation costs. That way you can spread the travel and accommodation costs over the whole membership base instead of penalising the non-European nations. That way, they aren't hurt when they need to travel to Europe and will have a better chance of hosting tournaments than they do just now because they won't come up against the other teams in the group forming a European cartel to ensure that they don't need to find the $10k per player required to send a team outside of their continent. I also think that it would be a good way of encouraging quicker introduction of national teams at all levels for all nations.
Graham.
"It's very hard to talk quantum using a language originally designed to tell other monkeys where the ripe fruit is."
---
"Night Watch", Terry Pratchett
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
