Barclay Donaldson
Registered User
nope, here's why:
where has it been stated that St. Louis wants to have an affiliate close to them, much less own or operate one, Kansas City has spurned all efforts to get a franchise close, no matter what was presented to them, that includes the Mavs..... that's why the Blues sold to Vancouver, and why they acquired the affiliation from Colorado....ie SA.....
WHT is the topic here is those you cite, weren't in season.... the lease was active in 2015 in Portland.....so how can that be used an an example where a lease is expiring and the League decrees a deadline as the AHL does with WB/S, SINCE NO franchise can operate either without a lease or affiliation such as Manchester just because the E allows a franchise to be independent, the AHL cannot....
NJ let Utica go in 1992 when the decision was made to go to Albany from RPI
First, just going off of logic, St. Louis has interest in having an AHL affiliate close to home because they tried to put it in KC... You would have to have interest in putting it close to home if you tried putting it there. Just going off logic, Hutch. If that’s not enough, they also tried Indianapolis also: Blues add AHL affiliate in San Antonio — for next year
The rest of your response is gibberish and then bringing up something that happened more than 25 years ago that wasn’t even relevant. We were talking about recent AHL hasty relocations, like one potentially facing WBS.