Dual Affiliates

Nightsquad

Registered User
Jan 25, 2014
834
100
Recently talks of shared affiliate topics have resurfaced, namely with Vegas. Some feel it's a step backwards......WHY? I think the AHL has gone in a direction whereby too much control has been taken away from individual teams, individual markets, and the league has made some very poor decisions. California teams are great, but playing less games then the rest of the league is anything but good business. The AHL has tried too hard to model itself as a junior NHL league, the 1980s and 1990s were much more entertaining years of AHL hockey....

The AHL has allowed itself to become a de facto NBA-D league like operations, might as well start calling it the NHL-D or how about the NHL2. The league has sacrificed much of its own identity. I used to think of the AHL as a league of its own with a developmental purpose but it's own identity intact. Dual affiliations are a challenge in terms of selecting the right coach, conflicting systems, and not often done with the best on ice success but if two NHL teams or a "local' AHL owner wanted to have a team with a dual affiliation and two willing NHL teams were for doing it then why not???? This model could actually be of a better benefit to a league like the ECHL. If you have only a few teams in an area like the northeast the ECHL could strongly benefit from dual affiliations as only a few players are provided for by the "parent" affiliate anyway.....If it allows a team to save resources and survive at either the ECHL or AHL level then why not, do away with the stupid Bylaws or this one affiliation between the ECHL, AHL, and NHL absurdity.
 

CHRDANHUTCH

Registered User
Mar 4, 2002
35,232
4,218
Auburn, Maine
Recently talks of shared affiliate topics have resurfaced, namely with Vegas. Some feel it's a step backwards......WHY? I think the AHL has gone in a direction whereby too much control has been taken away from individual teams, individual markets, and the league has made some very poor decisions. California teams are great, but playing less games then the rest of the league is anything but good business. The AHL has tried too hard to model itself as a junior NHL league, the 1980s and 1990s were much more entertaining years of AHL hockey....

The AHL has allowed itself to become a de facto NBA-D league like operations, might as well start calling it the NHL-D or how about the NHL2. The league has sacrificed much of its own identity. I used to think of the AHL as a league of its own with a developmental purpose but it's own identity intact. Dual affiliations are a challenge in terms of selecting the right coach, conflicting systems, and not often done with the best on ice success but if two NHL teams or a "local' AHL owner wanted to have a team with a dual affiliation and two willing NHL teams were for doing it then why not???? This model could actually be of a better benefit to a league like the ECHL. If you have only a few teams in an area like the northeast the ECHL could strongly benefit from dual affiliations as only a few players are provided for by the "parent" affiliate anyway.....If it allows a team to save resources and survive at either the ECHL or AHL level then why not, do away with the stupid Bylaws or this one affiliation between the ECHL, AHL, and NHL absurdity.

Dual affiliations, died out, because one of the proposals made it necessary for a member club had to have an NHL Affiliate as part of said proposal, or they wouldn't be considered for active membership, do u remember when Baltimore and Binghamton won 10 or 11 games in a sole season, NS, because there was no affiliation at all, and that's what ended the Independent status.

remember when the "merger" BETWEEN THE AHL/IHL was bandied about, that same caveat applied, where only one ownership group couldn't own more than 1 team at a given time, without sacrificing ownership in another. Roy Boe comes to mind going from Worcester TO Bridgeport, which is why the Blues took sole control of that franchise until selling it to Vancouver. That's how it took 11 years to reestablish hockey in Orlando, and that affiliation went to the Wolves for a time as well before TNSE and Manitoba.

simply the era and times have changed the league as it's existed in 8 decades, but it's always going to be the AHL, THE business notwithstanding whether the fans distaste for that, sometimes is lost that it is a business first and foremost...

the NBA D-League isn't that either, the WNBA started the same way with NBA backing most of that league in its inception, but it's taken longer to get the D-League to grow, and away from multiple affiliation to 1 team, to the model of either a hybrid, or the sole O/O of a D-League franchise, it's essentially how the league evolves and adapts to a particular model, if the model isn't succeding, you change the model or formula.
 

mmazz22

Registered User
Jan 24, 2010
237
62
Binghamton 11 win season was our last year of Harffords affiliate. Bing was never independent.
And the best Binghamton Whale days was the 3 year dual with Washington.
 

Tommy Hawk

Registered User
May 27, 2006
4,223
104
Dual affiliations, died out, because one of the proposals made it necessary for a member club had to have an NHL Affiliate as part of said proposal, or they wouldn't be considered for active membership, do u remember when Baltimore and Binghamton won 10 or 11 games in a sole season, NS, because there was no affiliation at all, and that's what ended the Independent status.

remember when the "merger" BETWEEN THE AHL/IHL was bandied about, that same caveat applied, where only one ownership group couldn't own more than 1 team at a given time, without sacrificing ownership in another. Roy Boe comes to mind going from Worcester TO Bridgeport, which is why the Blues took sole control of that franchise until selling it to Vancouver. That's how it took 11 years to reestablish hockey in Orlando, and that affiliation went to the Wolves for a time as well before TNSE and Manitoba.

simply the era and times have changed the league as it's existed in 8 decades, but it's always going to be the AHL, THE business notwithstanding whether the fans distaste for that, sometimes is lost that it is a business first and foremost...

the NBA D-League isn't that either, the WNBA started the same way with NBA backing most of that league in its inception, but it's taken longer to get the D-League to grow, and away from multiple affiliation to 1 team, to the model of either a hybrid, or the sole O/O of a D-League franchise, it's essentially how the league evolves and adapts to a particular model, if the model isn't succeding, you change the model or formula.

Nope. Still not a requirement to be an active franchise.
 

210

Registered User
Mar 5, 2003
12,393
961
Worcester, MA
210sportsblog.com
Nope. Still not a requirement to be an active franchise.

I'll just leave this right here:
http://wavy.com/2015/01/23/norfolk-admirals-owner-forced-to-sell-team/

“We didn’t have any choice,†Young said. “It was either keep a team that would not have an affiliation, so we would not have dates or have to sell to Anaheim, which if the Pacific division gets voted on by the American Hockey League this weekend then what we know as the AHL team will end up going out west.â€
 

Sports Enthusiast

Not Here To Be Liked
Sep 19, 2010
19,972
134
Middle of nowhere
Not a requirement but it would be hard to be independent. Still think practice squads for all parties involved would be better then the two leagues could form regional leagues that make better products for the fans.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->