Last week, we asked for your questions to be put forward to Ice Hockey UK CEO, Henry Staelens. Thank you for all your submissions. There were a superb wide range of questions and a large selection of them can be found below.
We answered as many questions as we were able to in the time available and combined similar questions to avoid duplications. We will do a another round of Q&A in the coming months in the form of either a video or another article.
I recently enjoyed watching GB Women at the Olympic Qualifiers and GB U20 Men at their World Championship tournament. Although both gave huge effort, GB Women lost out to the Netherlands and GB U20s finished behind Romania, Croatia and Lithuania. During the strategic review process, what have IHUK identified as the key factors that are enabling smaller, less-resourced nations to often out-compete our nation?
Henry: We have a number of talented ice hockey players coming through the system and a number of great support staff consisting of coaches, team managers, equipment managers and therapists currently working in the system as well.
However, one of the major factors that has been highlighted in our review process is the lack of alignment and communication across our entire system. This stems from a historic over reliance of volunteers in key roles and this is something we will look to change as part of our strategic aim, “professionalise to perform”.
This doesn’t, in any way, detract from how brilliant our volunteers are. They are what has brought GB to this exciting point, but simply we should be creating paid, full-time and part-time roles to take on much of the work, and then be ably supported by selected volunteers, who we invest in in terms of continuous professional development.
This puts us in the best position possible to have an aligned and thriving system, from juniors to development, where athletes can transition to our senior GB programmes more seamlessly, but also put us in a position to qualify for the 2030 Olympic Games.
If the men’s international team want to be serious players in the top tier of world ice hockey and qualify for the Olympics, why don’t we use the current IIHF in-season international breaks to give Pete Russell and the squad more time together, playing more competitive fixtures rather than only coming together for the Worlds and the Qualifiers?
Henry: Firstly, there is no doubt that an international break or breaks would benefit GB Men. Accordingly, we have recently confirmed with the Elite Ice Hockey League (EIHL) that these will begin consistently from next season (2025/2026) in February.
They should always have been in place, so we are pleased that from 2026 we will have this opportunity to not only get the key members of GB Men competing, but also to provide more opportunities for the up-and-coming stars of the future to take part through our NextGen programme, as seen in 2024.
Additionally, discussions led by the IIHF regarding a competitive cup for European nations are ongoing, which we are fully engaged with, and we hope this will come to fruition for the men’s game and in future the women’s game also.
IHUK previously announced that talks were ongoing with the Elite League to create a better way of working together for the good of the British game. In published minutes from IHUK board meetings, items being discussed included reducing the import level, increasing opportunities for British players including IHUK-funded initiatives, a possible player draft and the aim for a five-year agreement between IHUK and EIHL. Can you provide an update on these talks?
Henry: The relationship between Ice Hockey UK and Elite Ice Hockey League is in a very good place. We continue to discuss plans for reducing import levels over the next couple of years, but also appreciate their position historically.
There should also be greater integration between the GB Programme and the Elite League (coaches, scouts, etc) as this would benefit both organisations.
Additionally, there’s the potential for a GB High Performance Academy – based at a sixth form college – and how this could provide even more talented players who have the ability to earn a roster spot. We expect to release information relating to the five-year cooperation agreement in spring 2025, but we are committed to continuing these discussions to find the absolute best way forward before any announcement is made public.
In spring 2024, Ice Hockey UK announced the formation of the UK Ice Hockey Foundation. Are IHUK still working with the Foundation and, if so, is an update on developments due to be made available?
Henry: I am pleased to announce that news on the appointment relating to the Head of Hockey Development for the UK Ice Hockey Foundation (‘Foundation’) will be made public tomorrow (Wednesday 29th January).
It’s important to note, the Foundation is not governed by Ice Hockey UK and is a standalone entity legally, but we will work in close cooperation to ensure there is the maximum positive impact on the sport.
Do you envisage the GB Programme to continue making use of dual national players? If so, has there been any thought about reclassifying British-qualified, but not British-trained players to be allowed to play as Brits?
Henry: Our primary focus, as it has to be, is to develop British players through the GB Programme (the pathway – England and Scotland) and the working relationship with England Ice Hockey (EIH) and Scottish Ice Hockey (SIH) continues to progress.
However, we will announce changes in the coming months that will bring even greater alignment to this pathway to give the up-and-coming players the very best opportunity possible to make it as a GB Men’s or GB Women’s athlete.
The Foundation will also provide extra support in the junior age groups to provide more training and competition opportunities to younger players, and to drive down the cost.
Secondary to this, yes, we are reviewing reclassification protocol as we believe it has been over complicated in the past and these potential GB players should have an opportunity to represent Great Britain if they have the capabilities to do so.
The six-year strategy document published in the summer of 2024 was a very professional document that identified the aims and ambitions of IHUK. As of yet there has been limited information made available putting any detail into how these ambitions can become reality. When can we expect an update?
Henry: We don’t intend to release a single business plan but will publicly communicate all of the initiatives that happen – all of which are deeply aligned to the strategy and the priorities we have set out. Primarily, there will be lots of news in the spring around professionalisation, unity and unlocking barriers, which we feel will showcase how the strategy is becoming reality.
Having been around the sport for many years, I have seen a lot of disappointment when big plans have failed to materialise. Why do you think the new strategy will be different?
Henry: I understand that there have been a lot of false starts in ice hockey here in the UK and I can assure that the plans we have set out in the strategy are developing into reality. It’s just a matter of timing for when they will be announced or launched.
Personally, as I have said on a number of occasions, nothing frustrates me more than glossy plans with zero delivery, which is one of the reasons we kept the strategy short(ish) and to the point, so myself and everyone at IHUK will deliver against these priorities and be held accountable.
IHUK is now in a position where we have a strong executive team and a very experienced Board, including a large number of independent directors, all pulling in a single direction. I also feel that England Ice Hockey (EIH) and Scottish Ice Hockey (SIH) will continue to improve with better direction and support from IHUK, particularly around governance and investability.
While GB will never compete as a hockey nation with the likes of Canada, have you got a target in mind of how far the British game could go in relation to other European hockey nations?
Henry: The simple answer is: we have a huge fan base for ice hockey in the UK and are the fifth-biggest team sport in the UK for fan attendance in 2024 – and a healthy number of participants. There is a big appetite for the sport.
On the flipside, we need to access funding for the participation levels of the sport to make it more accessible at the entry level. Achieving this will be key to the long-term growth of the game.
With regard to the GB teams, our goal in the medium term is Olympic qualification – both for the Men and Women. We should never lose sight of this as it will drastically increase the opportunity of more funding and commercial interest, which will allow us to invest into every area of the game.
The landscape for the sport in the UK is nuanced so it’s difficult to compare to other nations directly, but I do feel that with a little extra push – and targeted resource investment into the key areas – the national teams can reach the next level – Olympic qualification – in the coming cycle.
Parents are investing in one of the most expensive sports, spending money for camps, team training and tournaments. If we look to Europe’s countries then we can see that hockey is supported financially from councils and government. What are the plans to develop and support kids hockey?
Henry: I won’t comment hugely on England given this is an Ice Hockey UK (IHUK) forum, but I do agree that we want to drive down the cost of the sport in the UK. This is a multi-faceted problem that can’t be resolved overnight because the issues have been left to grow for too long.
We can start to resolve it with greater unity amongst the governing bodies as announced back in spring, the rink operators and the key suppliers, plus greater commercial interest and operating cost reduction/reinvestment.
Centralising services between the home nations and IHUK will also drive down operational costs and duplication (triplication sometimes) so that we can reinvest these savings back into the sport in the areas that matter.
But unlocking barriers is right at the top of our agenda as I am keen that ice hockey is an accessible sport for all. If you enjoy it and/or you are good at it, you should be able to keep playing it, regardless of economics.
It’s worth noting that ice hockey is the fifth-biggest team sport in the UK, yet receives one of the smallest funding pots, including no investment currently from Sport England or Sport Scotland. It is our job to showcase how big the sport can be, from participation and healthy lifestyles, through to elite pathway, and make it as investable as the game deserves.
Later this year, we will also announce a major initiative that makes the sport more accessible than ever before for 5-11 year olds. Watch this space!
Specifically in relation to Great Britain, whilst many other Olympic sports do charge for representation, IHUK do not charge for any IIHF-level age group and it will remain that way.
The men’s U20s cannot escape the fourth tier of the men’s pyramid. I’m sure it’s not lost on you that in a world where Belarus and Russia are reinstated, finishing fourth in Division 2A is essentially being relegated to Division 2B. Does the IHUK tolerate such mediocrity at the junior level?
Henry: I wouldn’t call it mediocrity at all but can changes to the structure and the approach help the programme and our people as a whole? Yes. We have some brilliant coaches and support staff in the GB Programme, but I won’t hide from the fact we need to evolve how we are structured and how we support our people.
It’s also worth mentioning that each level of the GB Programme must have specific targets/remits – Talent ID, winning etc. This hasn’t been made clear enough and is something we will address for next season, as it will affect our approach, budgets and resource allocation.
The pathway is a development journey – to create players for GB Men and Women, with the ultimate aspiration being to qualify for the Olympics, in both Men and Women’s.
The World Championships are an important enabler along the way to measure progress and refine what we are doing. It’s great if our development age groups or GB Men/GB Women do well at World Championships, as it shows trajectory and cohesion, but the Olympics has to be the end point.
We are going to need players to replace the likes of Bowns, Dowd and Richardson. Why aren’t our young players being given access to high-quality coaches when they play for the national team?
Henry: We have some brilliant coaches and people already in the system who we must support and develop further, but the structure has to evolve to allow this.
We will look at a number of full-time coaching roles for next season and beyond, which will be a first for GB Ice Hockey. We will also work closely with the UK Ice Hockey Foundation and take a serious look at coach development to support our coaches more than ever before.
Is it the case that the IHUK only pays expenses for junior coaches and, if so, when is this going to change?
Henry: I have said from day one that I want to professionalise every aspect of GB and that involves shifting from a mainly volunteer workforce to a paid and performance-focused set-up.
This is the direction we will be going. Volunteers and support staff will always be integral to the programme, but we must put more into their development when they are with GB and they should be led by a full-time, accountable ice hockey coaching set-up.
A major issue that has faced young British players in the past has been going to North America to programmes who are maybe more interested in the tuition fees than the player’s actual development/advancement. Would IHUK consider bringing in a credible agent/advisor with a positive track record with high level/successful imports in North America who can provide some guidance to top young players and their families?
Henry: This is something we continue to look into, yes. Ultimately, we would like to create the right environment for young players to stay in the UK and develop, but also accept that North American programmes will always be an attractive proposition until we build something of our own.
In the six-year plan it mentioned an “increase playing time by up to 50% to improve the effectiveness of the pathway, in skill-development and an understanding of the GB Way”. Does that 50% increase mean an increase in games played by the national teams or club levels, or maybe there are plans to introduce a new league to get top players playing more games together?
Henry: All of it – we need maximum ‘time on task’ for technical, tactical, holistic development. A greater amount of international competition, as well as more minutes for our developing athletes within the programme.
The NIHL currently has a strict age restriction for new players aged 16 years old. There are times when a 15-year-old player is good enough to make our GB U18 roster, but won’t be able to play NIHL until the next season while his peers born in January, who may not be good enough for the GB U18 roster, are NIHL eligible. Could we see an exception made to give those GB U18 15 year olds a chance to play NIHL early if deemed good enough by the national team coaches?
Henry: This is an England Ice Hockey (EIH) matter but I am happy to comment. I am certainly in support of this in principle, but it is not currently in place in England and shouldn’t be rushed through without full risk assessment and planning. We are working with key stakeholders in the sport, especially in England Ice Hockey (EIH), but also to learn from Scottish Ice Hockey (SIH) who have this already in place, to assess this in its entirety.
Any time the topic of development comes up in GB, we hear the same excuses. Lack of rinks, lack of ice time, lack of coaching, lack of ambition, lack of support, etc. Despite all these excuses, we do see clubs that are able to thrive (see Leeds Junior Knights) and we also see very ambitious projects like Ozone Hockey and Elite British Selects who have given players fantastic platforms to thrive. Will we see EIH/IHUK make more of an effort to collaborate with those programmes who are finding success?
Henry: It depends what is meant by success. We would see that as long-term athlete development and, of course, this leads to better results over the long term (aka world-ranking trajectory, Olympic Qualification).
I am in support of private hockey operators and camps. They can provide a very valuable additional opportunity for players where costs allow, but they should never detract from the pathway as that is where our best opportunity at long-term athlete success centres around.
Great Britain U18 Women have just won gold. I am interested in what we can do to keep the young players involved in top-level competitive hockey and ensure we keep the best players motivated and involved through to senior hockey. Why don’t we have an under-20s in the women’s game to help bridge the gap – as we do in the male game – and what are your plans to support with this moving forward. What can we do to support our elite players to not have to go to North America to get top level-competition and coaching?
Henry: Firstly, a huge congratulations and thank you to the entire U18 Women’s group. Everyone should be exceptionally proud of the achievement and what it means for the women’s game as we move forward.
This is a really timely question. As part of professionalising our approach – and continuing our record investment into GB Women’s pathway – we will have news very soon on our plans to progress the women’s programme even further. This, simply put, gives more focus, more time, more strategic investment into our athletes and the group as a whole.
The major difference between the women’s and men’s game, in relation to this question, is that the physicality between U18 and senior level isn’t as vast – meaning that if we develop and prepare our U18 athletes in the right way (with a full-time resource and associated S&C investment etc), the step-up is smoother in the women’s game.
This certainly doesn’t mean we won’t introduce an U20s group to the pathway, but we feel this is something that can be assessed once the full-time coach is in place and has reviewed the possibilities/needs.
