They could go to the sphl
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.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,
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.and the ECHL will not allow any member in good standing to suspend multiple seasons.
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.
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.
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.
Again, you can believe what you want, but Royals119 is absolutely correct.
uh, nope, it seems you like starting trouble, just as you did when the Sharks and Ice Cats were in Worcester, you are being called out
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.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'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.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 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.
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."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."
So, no "5 year law" mentioned, and the market is open to anyone, in any league.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."
With Axtell or Ruskowski?Tough year for the Mallards.
A few months ago players had refused to get on the bus for a road trip due to issues with their coach.
It was Axtell. Ruskowski was let go in the middle of the 2016-17 season.With Axtell or Ruskowski?
It was Axtell. Ruskowski was let go in the middle of the 2016-17 season.
Quad City Mallards Fire Head Coach/GM Terry Ruskowski
Interesting how the arena actually owns the Mallards trademarks, I wonder how it got in their control instead of the team owners.
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?
QUAD CITY MALLARDS Trademark of QCM Holdings, Inc. - Registration Number 4360794 - Serial Number 85766756 :: Justia Trademarks
Am I missing something? The league owns the trademarks.
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."