In Latvia they rot their goalkeeper. Now he was banned from playing in the KHL

Pavel Panyshev

Pavel Panyshev

Janis Kalnins banned from playing in the KHL

It came to insanity, and you will not envy Janis Kalnins himself.

Latvia continues to go crazy, in other words, it is difficult to explain what is happening around local athletes. People who follow hockey and transitions to the KHL remember the story of striker Miks Indrashis.

The forward, who has been playing in the KHL for a long time and speaks excellent Russian (without an accent at all), was not even criticized, but some kind of humiliation and threats in his native country. Say, how dare you sign a contract with a Russian club in such politically difficult times?

As a result, Indrashis was brought to the point that the man had to make excuses and make statements that he had not actually signed any contract papers. Simply put, the attacker was pressed against the wall, and Meeks himself urgently needed to come up with something and get out. I wonder how the Latvians, who took part in the persecution of their own player and compatriot, were not ashamed to behave this way? Especially considering the fact that Meeks needed money for the treatment of a child, so he was looking for the best way to earn money for himself.



Related news

Indrasis needs money for the treatment of a child, so he signed a contract with Spartak

To some extent, another Latvian hockey player got into a similar story – goalkeeper Janis Kalnins, known in the KHL for his performances for Dynamo Riga and Jokerit. However, next season there will be no Latvian and Finnish clubs in our league (the Dynamo and Jokers themselves refused to play in it), and Janis, which is quite logical, began to work out the most profitable option for continuing his career.

The goalkeeper is already 30 years old, and now he needs to provide himself and his family as much as possible for the coming years. As a result, Kalnins signed a contract with Amur Khabarovsk, thus causing a wave of anger in his homeland. Everything is as in the case of Indrasis.



“We don't need him.  Let him get blood money.  For the sake of Russia, the goalkeeper became the enemy of Latvia
“We don’t need him. Let him get blood money. For the sake of Russia, the goalkeeper became the enemy of Latvia

Today the story continues. First, there was news that the Latvian Ice Hockey Federation had decided not to invite goalkeeper Janis Kalnins to the national team because of his transfer to the Russian club. Let’s remind, since April, 30th there is a Latvian law according to which representatives of the Russian clubs will not be caused in modular Latvia.

Absurd? More than, but it is unlikely that Janis was greatly hurt. At his age, the main thing is earnings, and others will play for the national team. However, local functionaries and officials did not calm down and went further.

Today, the same notorious Latvian federation on its official website announced that it had blocked the goalkeeper’s transfer to Amur.

Janis Kalnins

Janis Kalnins

Photo: Roman Koksharov, photo.khl.ru

“The application for the transfer of Kalnins entered the transfer system of the International Ice Hockey Federation this week. On July 21, the Latvian Ice Hockey Federation refused this transfer, ”the message says.

I wonder on what basis this was done? It is no secret that there are international player transfer rules and specific reasons for national federations to block transfers. I wonder what reason for the blocking was invented in Latvia and does it comply with the standards of the IIHF, of which the Latvian federation is a member? Very doubtful. There is probably only one reason – banal envy and anger, but this does not contain any legal reason to refuse a transfer card. But, given all the recent events, there is nothing to be surprised at.

Let’s see how this whole story ends. We repeat, the Latvians have no legal basis to prohibit Janis from moving to Amur. Moreover, they should not be affected by the decision of the athlete at all. Where and for whom to play is a personal choice of a person, and he is not obliged to listen to wishes and incitement from third-party advisers. I would like to believe that justice and common sense will prevail in this matter.

Leave a Reply