Mallards To Cease Operations The End Of This Season

royals119

Registered User
Jun 12, 2006
1,457
1,139
West Lawn, PA
McKenna said, but don't put much stock in this: even if QC were sold between now and April 7th, by announcing the withdrawal of membership, as they did, TaxSlayer Center still won't have hockey in 2018/19, and they own the rights to the franchise name.... the reason you cannot put stock in that comment, McKenna leaves at the end of 2017/18, as per previous announcement, so whomever comes in will have to deal with that,
Regardless of McKenna leaving the league is not going to add another team this late in the process. I will put stock in that based on the last several years of league history, and the fact that they already released the division alignments and are currently working on the schedule for next year. McKenna doesn't make unilateral decisions about the league, he just implements decisions of the Board of Governors. The deadline for declaring teams in or out for 2018/2019 has passed.

and the ECHL will not allow any member in good standing to suspend multiple seasons.
That would depend on the individual situation. Teams aren't allowed to suspend indefinitely if they don't have a plan to return. Teams who are actively working on returning could suspend for more than one season. I believe the most recent instance of this was Toledo, who had to wait a couple years between the time their old arena was torn down and the new one was finished. If a hurricane strikes Estero this summer and it takes two years to build a new arena, the Everblades will likely be suspended for two years.
 

Nightsquad

Registered User
Jan 25, 2014
834
100
Regardless of McKenna leaving the league is not going to add another team this late in the process. I will put stock in that based on the last several years of league history, and the fact that they already released the division alignments and are currently working on the schedule for next year. McKenna doesn't make unilateral decisions about the league, he just implements decisions of the Board of Governors. The deadline for declaring teams in or out for 2018/2019 has passed.


That would depend on the individual situation. Teams aren't allowed to suspend indefinitely if they don't have a plan to return. Teams who are actively working on returning could suspend for more than one season. I believe the most recent instance of this was Toledo, who had to wait a couple years between the time their old arena was torn down and the new one was finished. If a hurricane strikes Estero this summer and it takes two years to build a new arena, the Everblades will likely be suspended for two years.

See folks this is what I call smart, measured posts. This poster highlights the fact that often times the Commish is the "figure head" or PR man. The Board of Governors are the ones who make the real decisions. How many times have he heard the AHL's Andrews suggest or downplay something, only to then have the opposite happen? Despite these leagues saying spring is too late for a team to be announced and start up for the previous fall we all witnessed how that didn't matter for the AHL to ECHL swaps for Manchester, Norfolk, and Adirondack. With that in mind I agree maybe Quad City shouldn't jump into a new team/league for next season. Sometimes a wait period is a healthy thing. One success story of a long wait period is Utica NY for sure. They had a not so good run in the AHL with the Devils, then dropped down to the Colonial/UHL for several years with the Bulldogs, Blizzard, and Prowlers. Thankfully a long absence of pro hockey, a solid DIII program, and a good loyal local hometown hockey guy to figure out how to make it work, and he did just that.
 

Clinton Comets EHL

Registered User
Feb 18, 2014
1,387
326
yes, 13 1/2 years between the Prowlers UHL midseason fold and the U Comets starting up.

Good post, you're correct...sometimes going dark not the worst thing.

Thanks.
 

CHRDANHUTCH

Registered User
Mar 4, 2002
35,232
4,218
Auburn, Maine
Regardless of McKenna leaving the league is not going to add another team this late in the process. I will put stock in that based on the last several years of league history, and the fact that they already released the division alignments and are currently working on the schedule for next year. McKenna doesn't make unilateral decisions about the league, he just implements decisions of the Board of Governors. The deadline for declaring teams in or out for 2018/2019 has passed.


That would depend on the individual situation. Teams aren't allowed to suspend indefinitely if they don't have a plan to return. Teams who are actively working on returning could suspend for more than one season. I believe the most recent instance of this was Toledo, who had to wait a couple years between the time their old arena was torn down and the new one was finished. If a hurricane strikes Estero this summer and it takes two years to build a new arena, the Everblades will likely be suspended for two years.

you are blindly mistaken, QC was told flat out when requested the ECHL doesn't allow multiple year suspensions, royals, hence why the ultimate decision to file the withdrawal of membership....

it also states a 250K exit fee as the ECHL likely puts that 5 year clause over a market reentering, as wasn't it also stated by McKenna that if QC was sold, there still will be no hockey in 2018/19 since the withdrawal clause was sent and accepted by the ECHL.... IT WOULD ALSO cost the market 250K to switch to the SPHL even if that were an option.
 

210

Registered User
Mar 5, 2003
12,393
961
Worcester, MA
210sportsblog.com
Royals119 is not wrong. The ECHL does not allow teams to suspended for financial issues anymore, which is what Quad City would be needing to do. The ECHL would absolutely allow a current member to suspended for a season or two under the scenario Royals119 mentions, and as Royals119 notes they've done that previously with Toledo.
 

CHRDANHUTCH

Registered User
Mar 4, 2002
35,232
4,218
Auburn, Maine
Royals119 is not wrong. The ECHL does not allow teams to suspended for financial issues anymore, which is what Quad City would be needing to do. The ECHL would absolutely allow a current member to suspended for a season or two under the scenario Royals119 mentions, and as Royals119 notes they've done that previously with Toledo.

not quite, because McKenna denied that request, hence why the filing for withdrawal, which the League accepted, remember, QC is a member in good standing.... Mississippi left and is now in the SPHL as is Pensacola because that clause went longer than 2 years
 

royals119

Registered User
Jun 12, 2006
1,457
1,139
West Lawn, PA
you are blindly mistaken, QC was told flat out when requested the ECHL doesn't allow multiple year suspensions, royals, hence why the ultimate decision to file the withdrawal of membership....
I agree they don't allow suspensions just because the team is losing too much money, without a plan in place to change that. If a current team applied for a suspension with a real plan to change things (building a new arena for example), or because of circumstances out of their control (Hurricane) I think they would get approved. The league doesn't give blanket approval to suspensions, or blanket denials. It is case by case, or at least it has been up until now. Maybe that changed, and if it has I'd love to know more about it. If you have a source to back up your claims I'd take it more seriously.

it also states a 250K exit fee as the ECHL likely puts that 5 year clause over a market reentering, as wasn't it also stated by McKenna that if QC was sold, there still will be no hockey in 2018/19 since the withdrawal clause was sent and accepted by the ECHL.... IT WOULD ALSO cost the market 250K to switch to the SPHL even if that were an option.
I've seen you make these claims before, but I've never seen this anywhere else. I don't know how the ECHL could legally enforce this. I suppose they could have a clause in the ownership contract that prevents the current owners from starting up a team in another league for some period of time. I don't see how they could prevent a different person from starting a team in that market in a different league. Unless the leagues have somehow formed an agreement that they won't put teams in each other's former markets for 5 years, but that doesn't seem legal. I don't think competitors can enter into agreements like that.
 

CHRDANHUTCH

Registered User
Mar 4, 2002
35,232
4,218
Auburn, Maine
I agree they don't allow suspensions just because the team is losing too much money, without a plan in place to change that. If a current team applied for a suspension with a real plan to change things (building a new arena for example), or because of circumstances out of their control (Hurricane) I think they would get approved. The league doesn't give blanket approval to suspensions, or blanket denials. It is case by case, or at least it has been up until now. Maybe that changed, and if it has I'd love to know more about it. If you have a source to back up your claims I'd take it more seriously.


I've seen you make these claims before, but I've never seen this anywhere else. I don't know how the ECHL could legally enforce this. I suppose they could have a clause in the ownership contract that prevents the current owners from starting up a team in another league for some period of time. I don't see how they could prevent a different person from starting a team in that market in a different league. Unless the leagues have somehow formed an agreement that they won't put teams in each other's former markets for 5 years, but that doesn't seem legal. I don't think competitors can enter into agreements like that.

Please reread the Quad City Times article where it states the losses incurred by Melville, since he became sole owner of the Mallards, and the projected loss of the franchise in 2017/18.... it also states why, royals, the Mallards have to pay the league to withdraw membership, even if a new owner is found, as well as McKenna stating in that same article, that QC wouldn't be allowed to return to the ECHL until 2019/20... now was that a misdirected comment/reaction to Melville's application to withdraw the Mallards which the ECHL approved, care to explain why the ECHL LAW exists about the market open to a return, if that market elects to, hence the 5 year limit on the League over previous markets who were suspended, and later returned, why hasn't Elmira returned after what happened there and the League's decision to terminate their membership once First Arena was sold....

if I read the Mallards piece correctly in the source listed above, it's a 250K exit fee in addition to the League accepting the withdrawal of membership.... it's also a 250K hit to whomever acquires the market, and Melville said he had looked at all options, even switching leagues ie the SPHL, but that likely wouldn't be an option since the arena owns the rights to the franchise name.
 

royals119

Registered User
Jun 12, 2006
1,457
1,139
West Lawn, PA
Please reread the Quad City Times article where it states the losses incurred by Melville, since he became sole owner of the Mallards, and the projected loss of the franchise in 2017/18.... it also states why, royals, the Mallards have to pay the league to withdraw membership, even if a new owner is found, as well as McKenna stating in that same article, that QC wouldn't be allowed to return to the ECHL until 2019/20... now was that a misdirected comment/reaction to Melville's application to withdraw the Mallards which the ECHL approved, care to explain why the ECHL LAW exists about the market open to a return, if that market elects to, hence the 5 year limit on the League over previous markets who were suspended, and later returned, why hasn't Elmira returned after what happened there and the League's decision to terminate their membership once First Arena was sold....

if I read the Mallards piece correctly in the source listed above, it's a 250K exit fee in addition to the League accepting the withdrawal of membership.... it's also a 250K hit to whomever acquires the market, and Melville said he had looked at all options, even switching leagues ie the SPHL, but that likely wouldn't be an option since the arena owns the rights to the franchise name.

I didn't see that article, and just checked this thread for a link or reference to it and didn't see it. Maybe it's me? Here is a link for anyone else who missed it too. (you have to either subscribe or allow ads to read it)
Quad-City Mallards to cease operations at end of season

It does say that because he signed a three year contract with the league he has to pay to break that agreement early.
I don't see anything about "the market" being limited as far as someone else bringing in a new team in a different league. Melville does say it would cost another $250,000 to bring in an SPHL team. I assume he is referring to the cost to buy an SPHL franchise and other associated costs with starting up a new team, not some extra penalty he would pay the ECHL because he brought in a different team. And even if that were the case, no new owner, who isn't connected to Melville, would be subject to that extra $250,000 ECHL fine, even if it does exist.

No one can bring in an ECHL team for 18/19 because the Mallards have told they league they aren't coming back, and the deadline for changes to the league lineup have passed. That's what I said earlier in this thread, so we don't disagree there.

I can't figure out exactly what you are asking about the "ECHL LAW" and five year limits. No reference to that in the article that I saw.

Elmira hasn't returned or started up in a new league because there is no local owner who is willing to invest the money to fix the problems with the arena and spend the money to start up a team, and likely lose money on it every year. It isn't because of any "no team in any league for 5 years law". It just costs too much and the city/county don't want to spend the money to make the repairs, so the new owner would have to make that investment.

I don't see anything in the article that says there is any additional $250,000 penalty for anyone else to put an ECHL team in QC in the future. Just the normal fees associated with starting up a new team. They would have to buy an expansion franchise at this point.

Also, Melville says the main reason he folded the team was because his good friend who was going to take over as the GM was diagnosed with a recurrence of pancreatic cancer. He cites the monetary losses, but he's had those for years. The straw that broke the camels back was the fact that his replacement GM and good friend couldn't take the job and he "didn't have the heart" to keep going without him on board.
 

royals119

Registered User
Jun 12, 2006
1,457
1,139
West Lawn, PA
Another quote from that article.
"We don't have provisions where you can simply take a year or two off, maintain your membership and come back at some point in the future at an indefinite date and operate," McKenna said. "You're either in the league as a full member in good standing or not."
This again supports what I said earlier. You can't just suspend operations indefinitely, not pay your league dues and then start back up whenever you want. He doesn't specify here what it takes to be a "member in good standing", but based on past history I think we can infer you either 1) have a team that is playing games and are a fully functioning team, or 2) you continue to pay league dues, but have temporarily ceased playing games due to some defined circumstance, and you have a remedy in place to correct that circumstance, and that remedy has a defined completion date. For example, Toledo taking two years off to build a new arena. I think if the potential owner in Elmira had actually completed the purchase of the building and the team, and had told the league prior to the deadline for committing for the next season that it was going to take a year to get the ice plant replaced and perform arena upgrades, and he was suspending for one season, and he had signed contracts for the work, and the money to pay for it, he would have been approved. Because he couldn't come to an agreement on where the money was coming from to fix the ice and pay for the team and the building, they ended up folding.
 

royals119

Registered User
Jun 12, 2006
1,457
1,139
West Lawn, PA
Some more articles I found while searching for the one referenced above.
Komets’ Michael Franke responds to Quad City announcement | News, Sports, Jobs - News-Sentinel
Melville's tenure with Mallards can be guide for future owners
TaxSlayer director voices continued support for hockey
Interesting quote from McKenna here:
League commissioner Brian McKenna said that even if the team were to be sold between now and the end of the season, the earliest the Quad-Cities could return to the ECHL would be for the 2019-20 season.
"For the future, it's hard to say. At some point we'd like to be back there," McKenna said. "It becomes an open market so from that perspective, anybody could move forward in the market for the 19-20 season and beyond in our league or any other league, for that matter."
So, no "5 year law" mentioned, and the market is open to anyone, in any league.
Fans show support in wake of Mallards news
This article quotes the SPHL commissioner as saying they could put a team there for '18-'19 if an owner were in place by May 15. (Their season starts later than the ECHL, so they likely have a later deadline for teams every year)
Players, Axtell shocked by Mallards' decision
 

mk80

Registered User
Jul 30, 2012
7,962
8,490
Interesting how the arena actually owns the Mallards trademarks, I wonder how it got in their control instead of the team owners.
 

Woo Hockey

@WooHockeyNews
Jul 5, 2014
887
82
Worcester, MA
woo.hockey
I was interested in the incident about players not getting on the bus. I was pretty sure it wasn't under Ruskowski-who was a hoot to deal with in Cincinnati.

Do you know anything about what happened?

All I was told was that players refused to get on the bus because "they hate their coach". That came from someone who covered the team for a Minor League Sports Site, The Sin Bin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cyclones Rock

mk80

Registered User
Jul 30, 2012
7,962
8,490

That's my understanding as well. It could very likely be an error in the article below that Royals posted, but it says:
Mullen said the building owns the Mallards trademark and he would like to see the name continue in the future.
"It would be nice to get somebody in here and keep the name and Mallards' tradition going," Mullen said. "But we'll take it one step at a time."

Here is the article: (I should have referenced it in my last post)
TaxSlayer director voices continued support for hockey
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->