How Many ECHL Teams are on Their Deathbeds?

[Atlantian]

There is some good insight and opinions in this thread, and looking through the discussion here I am curious to know what you think make some of the ECHL teams successful and what makes some fall short and struggle? I'm looking at more in the past 5-8 year than going back into the history of the league since so much has changed with minor pro hockey in the last few decades.

Fans and demographics as well as history of hockey in the market. But essentially it all boils down to can you get butts in the seats. For Brampton, for a multitude of reasons including having a large immigrant population in the area as well as being a Sens affiliate right outside of Toronto, they could not. Manchester never could successfully transition their fanbase from AHL to ECHL hockey (even though there is not TOO much of a difference for the average fan in my opinion). Recently (Last 5-10 years), We have seen several former AHL cities transition down to ECHL hockey, including: Quad City, Manchester, Worcester, Maine (Portland), Adirondack, Norfolk, and Newfoundland (St. John's). I think it is too early to tell how the AHL fanbases in a lot of these places will allow for their teams to be successful. On the one hand, you have Adirondack, Newfoundland, and Worcester, who in my opinion, have openly accepted ECHL hockey and will likely be here for a while to come. Next you have teams like Portland and Norfolk who are struggling to attract fans, and in Norfolk's case, have not had stable ownership as of late. Lastly, you have QC and Manchester who did not survive.
I think, for a lot of the other teams, Tradition is what keeps them in place. You look at very successful cities like Toledo and Ft. Wayne and you see a long and storied history of successful teams and relatively stable ownership, and that attracts fans because of tradition in the area (worked that in for you JMC). Basically throughout the 90s and early 2000s, the ECHL tried every market they could put a team in, and as a result, a lot of them did not make it. Because of this, the markets that were able to be self sustaining have developed traditions in the area. Look at SC, Florida, and Atlanta/Gwinnett. These were cities that did not have a history of pro hockey (Atlanta plays in Duluth, which is 45 minutes outside Atlanta) and were not in "traditional hockey markets." These were teams that, although in nontraditional markets, were able to compete and be successful early on in their existence, developing loyal fanbases early and establishing a winning tradition in the area. Two out of these three teams have continued to be very successful and, in turn, have kept strong support in the community.

Fan support is the key to success (4k+ is the line for ECHL). Strong ownership group and stable arena is second (looking at you Newfoundland). On-ice success is third. Only a handful of teams fit into all three of these categories.

 

[bleedblue94]

Fans and demographics as well as history of hockey in the market. But essentially it all boils down to can you get butts in the seats. For Brampton, for a multitude of reasons including having a large immigrant population in the area as well as being a Sens affiliate right outside of Toronto, they could not. Manchester never could successfully transition their fanbase from AHL to ECHL hockey (even though there is not TOO much of a difference for the average fan in my opinion). Recently (Last 5-10 years), We have seen several former AHL cities transition down to ECHL hockey, including: Quad City, Manchester, Worcester, Maine (Portland), Adirondack, Norfolk, and Newfoundland (St. John's). I think it is too early to tell how the AHL fanbases in a lot of these places will allow for their teams to be successful. On the one hand, you have Adirondack, Newfoundland, and Worcester, who in my opinion, have openly accepted ECHL hockey and will likely be here for a while to come. Next you have teams like Portland and Norfolk who are struggling to attract fans, and in Norfolk's case, have not had stable ownership as of late. Lastly, you have QC and Manchester who did not survive.
I think, for a lot of the other teams, Tradition is what keeps them in place. You look at very successful cities like Toledo and Ft. Wayne and you see a long and storied history of successful teams and relatively stable ownership, and that attracts fans because of tradition in the area (worked that in for you JMC). Basically throughout the 90s and early 2000s, the ECHL tried every market they could put a team in, and as a result, a lot of them did not make it. Because of this, the markets that were able to be self sustaining have developed traditions in the area. Look at SC, Florida, and Atlanta/Gwinnett. These were cities that did not have a history of pro hockey (Atlanta plays in Duluth, which is 45 minutes outside Atlanta) and were not in "traditional hockey markets." These were teams that, although in nontraditional markets, were able to compete and be successful early on in their existence, developing loyal fanbases early and establishing a winning tradition in the area. Two out of these three teams have continued to be very successful and, in turn, have kept strong support in the community.

Fan support is the key to success (4k+ is the line for ECHL). Strong ownership group and stable arena is second (looking at you Newfoundland). On-ice success is third. Only a handful of teams fit into all three of these categories.

I would assume the lease agreements are a major factor as well. Are various places trying to push AHL level lease agreements onto ECHL teams? Are markets adjusting so much that arenas need to be more accepting of new demographics and what they can or are willing to afford and how the lease deals impact the affordability of the game to fans.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

I would assume the lease agreements are a major factor as well. Are various places trying to push AHL level lease agreements onto ECHL teams? Are markets adjusting so much that arenas need to be more accepting of new demographics and what they can or are willing to afford and how the lease deals impact the affordability of the game to fans.

what are u talking about:

Spectra owns and operates the XL Center as well as Cross Arena Portland.... there essentially isn't what you call a lease agreement in Portland like in the past.... because it's the same owner/operator that operates both the arena and owns the franchise member club in the same league that plays there, just as Spectra did when they built arenas in that aspect, so was AEG now ASM Direct....

Portland junked the County role of involvement post renovation.....not all have as we're seeing with Binghamton... WB/Scranton still deals with it over their contracts with Pittsburgh and Luzerne County in PA, which holds the rights over the arena in WB/Scranton.

if you reread the lease dispute at Cross it basically summarizes that.... the County Trustee Board had been an issue more so than the either the member club or the affiliated PDC THAT THE Affiliated member club has with the NHL Club, and typically all lease agreements were done by the member club... in this case either MHP, LLC, back originally and after the Flyers sold the original AHL Mariners to NJ..... Ebright, and that list of successors, when Washington first arrived here in 1993, followed that model as well.... it wasn't publically known by posters here until Arizona was asked if they wanted to assist in a lease talk, in the midst of what was officially the darkest period of that franchise's history.

 

[bleedblue94]

what are u talking about:

Spectra owns and operates the XL Center as well as Cross Arena Portland.... there essentially isn't what you call a lease agreement in Portland like in the past.... because it's the same owner/operator that operates both the arena and owns the franchise member club in the same league that plays there, just as Spectra did when they built arenas in that aspect, so was AEG now ASM Direct....

Portland junked the County role of involvement post renovation.....not all have as we're seeing with Binghamton... WB/Scranton still deals with it over their contracts with Pittsburgh and Luzerne County in PA, which holds the rights over the arena in WB/Scranton.

if you reread the lease dispute at Cross it basically summarizes that.... the County Trustee Board had been an issue more so than the either the member club or the affiliated PDC THAT THE Affiliated member club has with the NHL Club, and typically all lease agreements were done by the member club... in this case either MHP, LLC, back originally and after the Flyers sold the original AHL Mariners to NJ..... Ebright, and that list of successors, when Washington first arrived here in 1993, followed that model as well.... it wasn't publically known by posters here until Arizona was asked if they wanted to assist in a lease talk, in the midst of what was officially the darkest period of that franchise's history.

I wasn't talking about one particular city/club, I was talking about for minor pro teams in general, sorry if that wasn't clear. I am wondering if as cities shift from AHL to
ECHL if publicly owned arenas are trending towards the realization that lease deals need to change in ways to help these lower levels be more successful. Lower level of hockey may come with it an inherent demand for the fans for a lower ticket price. Lower ticket price means less team revenue, so I am curious how in general the trend is going for lease agreements. Are public entities more willing to work with ownership groups to put them in a position to succeed or are they trying to maintain AHL level lease agreements.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

I wasn't talking about one particular city/club, I was talking about for minor pro teams in general...

bleed:

it's a general terminology.... it will depend on what the arena structure is, what the member club is.... etc.... that rarely changes....

take Binghamton as an example.

are they or aren't they facing a 4th affiliation/member club franchise or league change in the last 25 years.... going back to the Rangers exiting for Hartford, once the Hartford Whalers publically announced they were leaving for Greensboro, then Raleigh, at the end of 1996 to adopt the Carolina Hurricanes moniker..... why exactly did the Rangers seize the opportunity to replace the NHL in Hartford with the Wolf*Pack, excuse the "marketing agreement and interlude of the Connecticut Whale".

in steps the UHL Icemen there in Broome County, whereas Mitchell left Binghamton with the that member club but returned by 2001, and then Ottawa comes in with their member club and sets up shop for the next fifteen years until 2017 when Ottawa announces their affiliated member club is transferring to Belleville, and in steps New Jersey, which had everything broken right would've been reviewed by next season, until that trademark filing by Esche in Utica .

in essence, what my premise is one move or decision by any existing franchise, independent of league, trickles down to all of the sport in general, whether you are aware of the league or its member clubs, just like any personnel/coaching/executive/ownership decisions affect the sports landscape.... it doesn't mean you have to like or accept those decisions and why they've happened.

it's the same as Norfolk was 21 years ago when they stepped up a league, and how each league views how those franchises are handled internally as to does that license or member club go away entirely as Brampton and Manchester ended up deciding , go dormant for a specified set of years, or in Portland's case request a transfer of territory as we did with Alaska, rather than go the route of what Newfoundland, Worcester, Savannah, T/R, and Coralville either accomplished or are in the process of accomplishing as we speak.

 

[Atlantian]

I would assume the lease agreements are a major factor as well. Are various places trying to push AHL level lease agreements onto ECHL teams? Are markets adjusting so much that arenas need to be more accepting of new demographics and what they can or are willing to afford and how the lease deals impact the affordability of the game to fans.

Yes lease agreements play a huge role. Contrary to what the other replies (that have absolutely nothing to do with the question being asked) have said, lease agreements are a big part of ECHL hockey. Specifically, look at Newfoundland. They have a solid following, won a championship, and have been praised by their parent club. They have threatened to relocate and still might leave St. John's if a favorable deal cannot be made with Mile One Sports and Entertainment either for a better lease or a sale of the arena in general. Then you have teams like Atlanta where there is division between the building and the ownership, resulting in shorter leases and more negotiations. Next you have teams like Utah that are 20 something years into a 40 something year agreement (could be mistaken). Lastly you have teams like Wheeling and Maine that are owned by the same owner as the building, making it easy to operate. I do not know for sure, but I would assume teams are relatively evenly spread out between the last three categories, with only a few teams actively struggling with their arena like Newfie. An unfavorable or no arena deal is also the dagger that caused teams like Evansville, Las Vegas, and Columbia to fold/relocate. So yes, it is a great question. A lot of times the deals are not released to the public, but we can infer.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Yes lease agreements play a huge role. Contrary to what the other replies (that have absolutely nothing to do with the question being asked) have said, lease agreements are a big part of ECHL hockey. Specifically, look at Newfoundland. They have a solid following, won a championship, and have been praised by their parent club. They have threatened to relocate and still might leave St. John's if a favorable deal cannot be made with Mile One Sports and Entertainment either for a better lease or a sale of the arena in general. Then you have teams like Atlanta where there is division between the building and the ownership, resulting in shorter leases and more negotiations. Next you have teams like Utah that are 20 something years into a 40 something year agreement (could be mistaken). Lastly you have teams like Wheeling and Maine that are owned by the same owner as the building, making it easy to operate. I do not know for sure, but I would assume teams are relatively evenly spread out between the last three categories, with only a few teams actively struggling with their arena like Newfie. An unfavorable or no arena deal is also the dagger that caused teams like Evansville, Las Vegas, and Columbia to fold/relocate. So yes, it is a great question. A lot of times the deals are not released to the public, but we can infer.

@Atlantian:

Newfoundland wasn't what you described it was, even before Deacon/ Dean MacDonald and the Growlers came to be.... yes, MLSE had success there with the now Marlies.... but SJSE, wasn't always hospitable to put it mildly with MLSE, either....

Newfoundland likely isn't going anywhere since that distracted sidebar over would it be a one season and done deal.... even in the midst of that run by the Growlers...

you never saw TNSE (who owned the Manitoba Moose when the Jets were returned or reestablished back in Winnipeg ) or later Montreal over the Hamilton Bulldogs (which were a Vancouver affiliate originally, which derives from the Canadiens/Nordiques battle royale over in Quebec as to which of those two would win the province...

once SJSE was satisfied that the Growlers would be their prime co-tenant along with the NBL-Canada St. John's Edge (similiar to what the G-League and WNBA are co-existing with the NBA).

Quebec had the Nordiques until the Kroenke family bought them in 1995 and shifted them to Denver, which had the hockey version of the Rockies until McMullen shifted that to New Jersey.. that originally was the KC Scouts, and like Quebec City, Kansas City has been brought up just like Houston was under Alexander and now Fertitta, that's why the Aeros are now the Iowa Wild

 

[Atlantian]

@Atlantian:

Newfoundland wasn't what you described it was, even before Deacon/ Dean MacDonald and the Growlers came to be.... yes, MLSE had success there with the now Marlies.... but SJSE, wasn't always hospitable to put it mildly with MLSE, either....

Newfoundland likely isn't going anywhere since that distracted sidebar over would it be a one season and done deal.... even in the midst of that run by the Growlers...

you never saw TNSE (who owned the Manitoba Moose when the Jets were returned or reestablished back in Winnipeg ) or later Montreal over the Hamilton Bulldogs (which were a Vancouver affiliate originally, which derives from the Canadiens/Nordiques battle royale over in Quebec as to which of those two would win the province...

once SJSE was satisfied that the Growlers would be their prime co-tenant along with the NBL-Canada St. John's Edge (similiar to what the G-League and WNBA are co-existing with the NBA).

Quebec had the Nordiques until the Kroenke family bought them in 1995 and shifted them to Denver, which had the hockey version of the Rockies until McMullen shifted that to New Jersey.. that originally was the KC Scouts, and like Quebec City, Kansas City has been brought up just like Houston was under Alexander and now Fertitta, that's why the Aeros are now the Iowa Wild

Newfoundland is still in the midst of a battle between Dean McDonald and the operators of Mile One. Yes, it is better than it was prior to the 19-20 season, but there is still the chance they pull the rug out from under him. He is actively trying to purchase it to revitalize the arena and the city council keeps pushing back against it, even though it is sitting empty and costing taxpayers millions of dollars. SJSE and their arena politics contributed (not the sole reason but from what I've heard) to the failure of the QMJHL Fog Devils, the original IceCaps, and probably the second IceCaps. Also, what does any of the Manitoba, Montreal, Quebec talk have to do with Newfoundland's lease agreement? 75% of what that reply is is just utterly irrelevant to the conversation.

 

[bleedblue94]

Yes lease agreements play a huge role. Contrary to what the other replies (that have absolutely nothing to do with the question being asked) have said, lease agreements are a big part of ECHL hockey. Specifically, look at Newfoundland. They have a solid following, won a championship, and have been praised by their parent club. They have threatened to relocate and still might leave St. John's if a favorable deal cannot be made with Mile One Sports and Entertainment either for a better lease or a sale of the arena in general. Then you have teams like Atlanta where there is division between the building and the ownership, resulting in shorter leases and more negotiations. Next you have teams like Utah that are 20 something years into a 40 something year agreement (could be mistaken). Lastly you have teams like Wheeling and Maine that are owned by the same owner as the building, making it easy to operate. I do not know for sure, but I would assume teams are relatively evenly spread out between the last three categories, with only a few teams actively struggling with their arena like Newfie. An unfavorable or no arena deal is also the dagger that caused teams like Evansville, Las Vegas, and Columbia to fold/relocate. So yes, it is a great question. A lot of times the deals are not released to the public, but we can infer.

Thanks, this is what I was looking for. My questions are more based in what have the successful lease agreement evolved into over time, to ask another way: 10-15 years ago a certain lease structure could be viewed as ideal and would lead to success for the team and public entity. Fast forward to now, what do the more recent mutually successful lease deals outline as? Private owned rinks that have the same owner as the team really are irrelevant to the question bc those owners hold autonomy over everything, but when balancing a team vs public interest and building what structures seem to be working in the more recent years?

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Newfoundland is still in the midst of a battle between Dean McDonald and the operators of Mile One. Yes, it is better than it was prior to the 19-20 season, but there is still the chance they pull the rug out from under him. He is actively trying to purchase it to revitalize the arena and the city council keeps pushing back against it, even though it is sitting empty and costing taxpayers millions of dollars. SJSE and their arena politics contributed (not the sole reason but from what I've heard) to the failure of the QMJHL Fog Devils, the original IceCaps, and probably the second IceCaps. Also, what does any of the Manitoba, Montreal, Quebec talk have to do with Newfoundland's lease agreement? 75% of what that reply is is just utterly irrelevant to the conversation.

@ Atlantian:

the point is this didn't start with Deacon....

just like what you're seeing in Binghamton, depending on which side of that you are on there and what was reported there.... the arena itself, ISN'T involved in that dispute between them and the Devils.....

the same premise that Portland went through in 2014 in the midst of Cross being retrofitted, NEVER mind whether fans were going to be allowed during that retrofit, the expansion to the Colisee as a temporary home arena until it was cleared to return for safety reasons, the club that March had an agreement to return there or so they had thought until the County for reasons still unknown as to why they did what they did....the Portland fanbase was told from day 1 until it was revealed that the lease was rejected similiar to what SJSE and Deacon were facing in their inaugural season, that was the primary reason why in 2005, MLSE pulled the Leafs affiliate out of Mile One Centre.

in fact, the Leafs logos remained at Mile One Centre when Courteau granted the Fog Devils because of Mark Just and the Lewiston MAINEiacs, forerunners to the then NAHL Maine Nordiques who were affiliated with Quebec prior to Spectra/Philadelphia building Cross and launching the AHL era in Portland....

 

[royals119]

A favorable lease is certainly important. It also has to work for both sides. If the entity that owns the building has construction loans to pay, and operating costs to cover, they may not be in a position to give a team the lease terms they need. If they do, the building itself could become insolvent, or require a taxpayer bailout, and that will probably result in the lease being voided or changed.

From what I've been told by various team employees/owners/managers over the years, the income sources are generally in three parts. Season ticket sales, group ticket sales, and sponsorships/advertising. Each should represent about a third of the teams income. Single game walk-up sales are nice, but not a major factor in the budget. Owners that don't have the capital to fund operations for the first year or two will try to run a team on a low budget. They hire entry level people and use interns to sell tickets and run game day operations, bring in rookie coaches, have a low budget for player expenses, try to go cheap on equipment, etc. This results in poor performance on and off the ice, and as the people who did go to games stop going, or don't go as often, they cut the budget further, and go into a death spiral. Well financed teams hire better people with more experience, bring in top coaches, invest in better training room, practice facility, equipment and have a higher player budget, so they put a better team on the ice, they sell more tickets because they have better sales people selling a better product, and therefore more sponsors are willing to buy bigger advertising packages and they keep growing. The old adage "you have to spend money to make money" is true.

Also, you have to listen to your customers. If the fans are saying they don't like something, or want something brought back that you got rid of, maybe do that, instead of trying to tell the fans why they are wrong, or that they should like something else. Also, marketing to the right people. If you are changing the game time, and the food choices, and the music and the game presentation, etc to attract families with kids, without realizing that families with kids also have two working parents, soccer games, scouts, band practice, etc, and they are never going to commit to more than a few games a season, while you ignore, or actively turn off the retirees, college kids, couples without kids, young singles, etc who have the free time and disposable income to get season tickets, you are not going to do as well. I don't know the specifics of what happened in Manchester and Trenton, but those were part of the issues. Doing stuff to piss off your die hard fans isn't a good long term strategy.

If there just aren't enough local people to support a team economically then you can have a perfect owner with lots of money and great ideas, but they won't be successful. That was what happened with Atlantic City. The city population was very small, and not well off economically. Because the city is up against the ocean, and not very accessible, there really isn't much of a suburban population to draw from. They were trying to draw tourists basically, and you just aren't going to get enough of them to go to a minor league hockey game when they came there to gamble and spend time at the beach/boardwalk.

 

[JMCx4]

... when balancing a team vs public interest and building what structures seem to be working in the more recent years?

It would take some serious digging to find and summarize the "structures" of building leases (I'll leave that to your enthusiasm for the topic), but here are a couple of ECHL teams that seem to have struck a balanced agreement in the recent past.

1. KC Mavericks & Spectra Venue Management (on behalf of the City of Independence, MO for use of the now-Cable Dahmer Arena).
2. Ft. Wayne Komets & Allen County, IN (for use of the Allen County War Memorial Coliseum)

An interesting side note from my searches for public info: I saw mention of ECHL franchise agreement renewal dates coming up in Summer 2021, which may bring another layer of uncertainty for the futures of some teams on the heels (and still in the guts) of the pandemic. A nugget for further chewing in the ECHL to 30 Teams? thread ...

 

[CrazyEddie20]

A favorable lease is certainly important. It also has to work for both sides. If the entity that owns the building has construction loans to pay, and operating costs to cover, they may not be in a position to give a team the lease terms they need. If they do, the building itself could become insolvent, or require a taxpayer bailout, and that will probably result in the lease being voided or changed.

From what I've been told by various team employees/owners/managers over the years, the income sources are generally in three parts. Season ticket sales, group ticket sales, and sponsorships/advertising. Each should represent about a third of the teams income. Single game walk-up sales are nice, but not a major factor in the budget. Owners that don't have the capital to fund operations for the first year or two will try to run a team on a low budget. They hire entry level people and use interns to sell tickets and run game day operations, bring in rookie coaches, have a low budget for player expenses, try to go cheap on equipment, etc. This results in poor performance on and off the ice, and as the people who did go to games stop going, or don't go as often, they cut the budget further, and go into a death spiral. Well financed teams hire better people with more experience, bring in top coaches, invest in better training room, practice facility, equipment and have a higher player budget, so they put a better team on the ice, they sell more tickets because they have better sales people selling a better product, and therefore more sponsors are willing to buy bigger advertising packages and they keep growing. The old adage "you have to spend money to make money" is true.

Also, you have to listen to your customers. If the fans are saying they don't like something, or want something brought back that you got rid of, maybe do that, instead of trying to tell the fans why they are wrong, or that they should like something else. Also, marketing to the right people. If you are changing the game time, and the food choices, and the music and the game presentation, etc to attract families with kids, without realizing that families with kids also have two working parents, soccer games, scouts, band practice, etc, and they are never going to commit to more than a few games a season, while you ignore, or actively turn off the retirees, college kids, couples without kids, young singles, etc who have the free time and disposable income to get season tickets, you are not going to do as well. I don't know the specifics of what happened in Manchester and Trenton, but those were part of the issues. Doing stuff to piss off your die hard fans isn't a good long term strategy.

If there just aren't enough local people to support a team economically then you can have a perfect owner with lots of money and great ideas, but they won't be successful. That was what happened with Atlantic City. The city population was very small, and not well off economically. Because the city is up against the ocean, and not very accessible, there really isn't much of a suburban population to draw from. They were trying to draw tourists basically, and you just aren't going to get enough of them to go to a minor league hockey game when they came there to gamble and spend time at the beach/boardwalk.

Everything royals119 said is pretty much spot on - I'll add a few notes.

First, regarding arena leases - oftentimes, the arena is trying to get every penny they can up front, and with good reason, as we all know how many hockey teams have come and gone. That can make negotiations difficult. The owners want to own a hockey team, and they need somewhere for that team to play. Where else are they going to go? With a few exceptions, most cities only have one arena capable of hosting a minor league team with a large enough seating and technology capacity to make it feasible. If you want your team to play, you'll rent the arena on their terms.

With regard to revenue, a lot of sponsorships are trade deals. You need towels for the locker room? Trade a board ad to a linen service. You need a bus service for short road trips? Trade out with a bus company. It's not money coming in, but it cuts expenses.

The "death spiral" you mention above can also be started when the owner of a team that's making money decides he wants to make more money by trimming some fat... then he quickly discovers that having two group sales executives instead of four means his group sales went down 50%, and so they cut more the next year, until the team goes buh-bye.

You have to listen to your customers, yes, but you're also going to have dingbat fans that come into the office every day with bad ideas and new complaints. You have to realize who they are and act like you're taking them seriously even though you know you won't.

 

[royals119]

You have to listen to your customers, yes, but you're also going to have dingbat fans that come into the office every day with bad ideas and new complaints. You have to realize who they are and act like you're taking them seriously even though you know you won't.

You can please some of the people, all of the time, or all of the people some of the time... Listening to the "crazy dingbats" who scream the loudest or complain the most is a sure way to fail.

Crazy Karen: "I don't like that goal song, and the fact that 5000+ fans are singing along, clapping and stomping their feet is annoying me".
GM: "OK ma'am, we will change it.
5000+ rabid fans: "see ya later"

 

[CrazyEddie20]

You can please some of the people, all of the time, or all of the people some of the time... Listening to the "crazy dingbats" who scream the loudest or complain the most is a sure way to fail.

Crazy Karen: "I don't like that goal song, and the fact that 5000+ fans are singing along, clapping and stomping their feet is annoying me".
GM: "OK ma'am, we will change it.
5000+ rabid fans: "see ya later"

A fan of a team I worked for would scour the waiver wires (ECHL/UHL/CHL/WPHL) daily and print out the hockeydb entries of players he thought the coach should sign. The coach humored him a few times and listened to what he had to say, and after that, he kept them coming for a month or two until he finally realized the coach didn't give a crap what this guy thought of Andy Anklebender who was just released by the Abilene Aviators. Of course, that didn't stop him from complaining every chance he got to anyone who would listen.

 

[JMCx4]

A fan of a team I worked for would scour the waiver wires (ECHL/UHL/CHL/WPHL) daily and print out the hockeydb entries of players he thought the coach should sign. The coach humored him a few times and listened to what he had to say, and after that, he kept them coming for a month or two until he finally realized the coach didn't give a crap what this guy thought of Andy Anklebender who was just released by the Abilene Aviators. Of course, that didn't stop him from complaining every chance he got to anyone who would listen.

I can't find him on the Aviators' roster in hockeyDB. I hope y'all didn't give him a PTO.

 

[CrazyEddie20]

I can't find him on the Aviators' roster in hockeyDB. I hope y'all didn't give him a PTO.

I should have noted that names were changed to prevent the guilty.

Edited to add: That's not to say you can't find players off the waiver wire. You can. There have been plenty of guys who got waived early in the ECHL season and went on to lead teams - even the league - in scoring or be huge contributors. They're out there. There just aren't that many of them, and their numbers become fewer as the season goes on.

I'm sure that fan was only trying to help. He really thought he knew hockey. But then, so do most fans. And then they'll want to know why a forward with, say, 11 points in 37 games wasn't waived. You tell them he's there for his play on special teams, and they say he doesn't score on the power play. It's then that you remind them the other team doesn't score on the PP when he's on the ice, and they maybe start to get it.

 

[CrazyEddie20]

To get back to the original premise of this thread - every team in the ECHL and SPHL are one owner's decision to get out of the hockey business away from folding. Every. Single. One. Maybe the owner can find a buyer. Maybe the owner can't. Maybe he/she is losing too much money.

This even goes for Wheeling and Reading, which are owned by municipal bodies. They don't have a mandate to provide hockey, and won't if it's losing too much money. Wheeling can't even keep the ice frozen in their concrete dumphole of a rink anymore. Replacing the ice plant with a temporary system was a temporary fix that's gone on for several years now, and they certainly haven't made enough (if any) profit to pay for a replacement of the system.

Say Mr. Franke in Fort Wayne or Mr. Brush down in Florida decides it's time to do something else or just enjoy retirement? Better hope someone steps up to buy the team.

 

[jabberoski]

To get back to the original premise of this thread - every team in the ECHL and SPHL are one owner's decision to get out of the hockey business away from folding. Every. Single. One. Maybe the owner can find a buyer. Maybe the owner can't. Maybe he/she is losing too much money.

This even goes for Wheeling and Reading, which are owned by municipal bodies. They don't have a mandate to provide hockey, and won't if it's losing too much money. Wheeling can't even keep the ice frozen in their concrete dumphole of a rink anymore. Replacing the ice plant with a temporary system was a temporary fix that's gone on for several years now, and they certainly haven't made enough (if any) profit to pay for a replacement of the system.

Say Mr. Franke in Fort Wayne or Mr. Brush down in Florida decides it's time to do something else or just enjoy retirement? Better hope someone steps up to buy the team.

Craig Brush isn't the majority owner in Florida. He may still have a small piece, but Peter Karmanos sold the team a couple years ago - Hoffmann Family Enters Into Agreement To Purchase Hertz Arena, Florida Everblades

 

[Atlantian]

To get back to the original premise of this thread - every team in the ECHL and SPHL are one owner's decision to get out of the hockey business away from folding. Every. Single. One. Maybe the owner can find a buyer. Maybe the owner can't. Maybe he/she is losing too much money.

This even goes for Wheeling and Reading, which are owned by municipal bodies. They don't have a mandate to provide hockey, and won't if it's losing too much money. Wheeling can't even keep the ice frozen in their concrete dumphole of a rink anymore. Replacing the ice plant with a temporary system was a temporary fix that's gone on for several years now, and they certainly haven't made enough (if any) profit to pay for a replacement of the system.

Say Mr. Franke in Fort Wayne or Mr. Brush down in Florida decides it's time to do something else or just enjoy retirement? Better hope someone steps up to buy the team.

Not Adirondack. IIRC they have a fan owned model similar to the Green Bay Packers

 

[CrazyEddie20]

Craig Brush isn't the majority owner in Florida. He may still have a small piece, but Peter Karmanos sold the team a couple years ago - Hoffmann Family Enters Into Agreement To Purchase Hertz Arena, Florida Everblades

I had forgotten about that sale.

As for Adirondack - they're owned by the same non-profit that owns the Civic Center. Don't confuse "non-profit" with "loss leader." If the hockey team is losing money hand over fist, the tax status of the corporate entity that owns it won't make a difference in it surviving. And if thousands of people in Glens Falls had in fact bought "shares" a la the Green Bay Packers, that doesn't mean they wouldn't have to do another "stock sale" to raise more capital for the team if it were losing money. With a smaller population and a far smaller group of people interested in purchasing "shares," the market would probably get fed up with the repeated fundraising, not to mention that paying $250 for a "share" of an ECHL team is far less attractive than paying $250 for a "share" of an NFL franchise. (Regarding Thunder ownership, see: Local group buys Adirondack Thunder)

(I use quotes in the above paragraph around "shares" and "stock sale" with regard to the Packers because the "shares" the Packers sell are not legally a security nor do they convey a real ownership interest, because it is not tradeable, has no voting rights, and pays no dividends.)

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

I had forgotten about that sale.

As for Adirondack - they're owned by the same non-profit that owns the Civic Center. Don't confuse "non-profit" with "loss leader." If the hockey team is losing money hand over fist, the tax status of the corporate entity that owns it won't make a difference in it surviving. And if thousands of people in Glens Falls had in fact bought "shares" a la the Green Bay Packers, that doesn't mean they wouldn't have to do another "stock sale" to raise more capital for the team if it were losing money. With a smaller population and a far smaller group of people interested in purchasing "shares," the market would probably get fed up with the repeated fundraising, not to mention that paying $250 for a "share" of an ECHL team is far less attractive than paying $250 for a "share" of an NFL franchise. (Regarding Thunder ownership, see: Local group buys Adirondack Thunder)

(I use quotes in the above paragraph around "shares" and "stock sale" with regard to the Packers because the "shares" the Packers sell are not legally a security nor do they convey a real ownership interest, because it is not tradeable, has no voting rights, and pays no dividends.)

the question is moot about Adirondack, Eddie, otherwise wouldn't the Thunder have gone the way of Brampton and Manchester? especially being granted a year off, the Thunder are still operating, just as the other 13 who opted out

 

[CrazyEddie20]

the question is moot about Adirondack, Eddie, otherwise wouldn't the Thunder have gone the way of Brampton and Manchester? especially being granted a year off, the Thunder are still operating, just as the other 13 who opted out

Is it though? Do you think people are going to be flocking back to rinks next season? Take a longer look and the future for the Thunder and every other team in the league is murky.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Is it though? Do you think people are going to be flocking back to rinks next season? Take a longer look and the future for the Thunder and every other team in the league is murky.

yes,

I just posted Atlanta Motor Speedway will be fully operational by July, 2021, no cap on attendance or limits, Eddie, and that's Georgia, right near the Gladiators in Duluth... All indications are close to what they would be post March 2020 when North America shut down...

where has it been posted or stated that the 3 AHL Markets and the 14 ECHL Markets who elected to opt out with the blessing of both those leagues, nevermind the blessing of the PHPA, as you're seeing the pushback from the PHPA over the Pacific Division hosting a bubble type tourney past 5/16/21.

all opted out teams may not be as active as they usually would be this time of year, but they are to that market.

 

[royals119]

To get back to the original premise of this thread - every team in the ECHL and SPHL are one owner's decision to get out of the hockey business away from folding. Every. Single. One. Maybe the owner can find a buyer. Maybe the owner can't. Maybe he/she is losing too much money.

This even goes for Wheeling and Reading, which are owned by municipal bodies. They don't have a mandate to provide hockey, and won't if it's losing too much money. Wheeling can't even keep the ice frozen in their concrete dumphole of a rink anymore. Replacing the ice plant with a temporary system was a temporary fix that's gone on for several years now, and they certainly haven't made enough (if any) profit to pay for a replacement of the system.

Say Mr. Franke in Fort Wayne or Mr. Brush down in Florida decides it's time to do something else or just enjoy retirement? Better hope someone steps up to buy the team.

Absolutely. The Berks County Convention Center Authority owned the team a few years ago, ran it on the cheap, and ended up selling because they were losing money and couldn't afford it. They bought the team back at a point where they were in a different financial situation, hired new management, and have been doing well. As long as they can sell enough food and beverage at the games, and the team comes close enough to break even to cover the employee costs, so those employees can also book concerts and turn a profit overall, the team will be around. If not, they will look for a buyer, who may or may not stay in Reading.