The purpose of the AHL is not to make money and be competitive it is to develop NHL prospect's.With no fans in the stands the AHL is just going to lose money.
I'm pretty sure it's the money.The purpose of the AHL is not to make money and be competitive it is to develop NHL prospect's.
If the NhL team owns the AHL team they can afford to lose money.I'm pretty sure it's the money.
It's always the money.
New Jersey and Calgary are infamous for being so indifferent toward's minor league markets. To the point where their AHL team end's up moving every 5 years or so.If the NhL team owns the AHL team they can afford to lose money.
If owned by another party they need to make money.
I'm pretty sure it's the money.
It's always the money.
San Jose choose's to keep their AHL team in the same city for optimal prospect development over potentially making more money and growing the sharks brand in another city in Northern CA.That is only the case for the minority of teams. It is prospect development first, making money second as the league wide standard. Teams like Chicago Wolves are the last remnants. Check out AHL attendance for the bottom half of the league and look at the number of teams clearly not making money yet clearly entrenched in their market for the long term.
also, a reminder.... Stockton has a renewal extension in play after 2021-22, it has nothing to do with New Jersey, Centrum.New Jersey and Calgary are infamous for being so indifferent toward's minor league markets. To the point where their AHL team end's up moving every 5 years or so.
If the NhL team owns the AHL team they can afford to lose money.
If owned by another party they need to make money.
That is sad. Some people may dislike that development.There are a bunch of NHL teams that can't afford to just throw money down a hole for the hell of it. According to this thread, average AHL team budgets were in the $3-4M range a few years ago. That's not monopoly money, we're talking $3-4M that an actual person is signing over to a bunch of other people for no purpose other than holding a glorified prospect camp.
In cases where the teams aren't owned by NHL organizations, that will absolutely not happen. In cases where they're owned by NHL organizations, maybe half of them will be fine with it and the other half will have serious reservations. A bunch of owners are already being devastated in their primary lines of business, and furloughing or laying off NHL-level employees en masse. How are they supposed to feel about going further into the red for the sake of minor league development?
I could more easily see the NHL granting teams the option to carry their high-end prospects as black aces during the regular season, than see the entire AHL get up and running without revenue streams. It's just not gonna happen.
I'd like to see a list with citations backing up that statement in bold text. I'm curious who that "bunch" includes.... A bunch of owners are already being devastated in their primary lines of business, and furloughing or laying off NHL-level employees en masse. How are they supposed to feel about going further into the red for the sake of minor league development?
I could more easily see the NHL granting teams the option to carry their high-end prospects as black aces during the regular season, than see the entire AHL get up and running without revenue streams. It's just not gonna happen.
I'd like to see a list with citations backing up that statement in bold text. I'm curious who that "bunch" includes.
The first one that jumps to mind is Jeremy Jacobs. Delaware North has had deep cuts and layoffs.
Alex Meruelo, Arizona owner, has been much discussed because of his ties to food service and casinos, two industries that are in panic mode right now.
Calgary's Tom Gaglardi is in hotels and restaurants. Speaks for itself.
Vincent Viola and Josh Harris are tied up in the markets. Also speaks for itself.
The Wirtzes are hard to judge, but they're heavily tied to sports/events, beverage distribution, insurance. That can't be going well for them right now. Leonsis, Burkle and Foley are in a similar position, diversified for stability but also tied to some struggling industries. The bottom line is they're ultimately also tied to market performance, which has tanked.
Islanders' Scott Malkin is leveraged in fashion retail outlets, which are doing terribly.
I have to think the Pegulas are losing money hand over fist, with so much of their wealth leveraged into pro sports. I know they've been laying people off from their parent company.
Calgary's Murray Edwards is an oil/gas guy. That industry was already a wreck before the pandemic dramatically reduced oil consumption.
Stan Kroenke (Colorado) is very heavily leveraged on pro sports. Same as the Pegulas.
Larry Tanenbaum's money comes from construction and public works. That's going to tank for a few years as budget shortfalls cascade into long term planning.
Of the ones I haven't named, most are very heavily leveraged in their ownership of their NHL teams/arenas -- Leipold for example. That group is going to end up losing a lot of money this year, by virtue of the NHL and arena-entertainment industry facing severe losses.
There are a few that are probably doing relatively OK, but even at that the situation has to be skittish for every single one of them.
And regarding layoffs, the Canucks announced 49 adminstrative cuts the other day, and likely more to follow (the 49 was to avoid labour law regulations about notice before mass layoffs, which starts at 50 people). I believe other teams have done similar.
I never understand why they do this. Was told the Devils had a pretty good following in Albany. Close enough to get players to the big club in an emergency, but far enough that they can develop their own base. I understood when the Rangers moved from Binghamton to Hartford when the Whalers left, same for the Sens moving to Binghamton. The constant changing just doesn't make sense to me.New Jersey and Calgary are infamous for being so indifferent toward's minor league markets. To the point where their AHL team end's up moving every 5 years or so.
the Devils relationship isn't what it was the 2nd time....that's the business side of hockey....I never understand why they do this. Was told the Devils had a pretty good following in Albany. Close enough to get players to the big club in an emergency, but far enough that they can develop their own base. I understood when the Rangers moved from Binghamton to Hartford when the Whalers left, same for the Sens moving to Binghamton. The constant changing just doesn't make sense to me.
Binghamton offered to absorb all losses for the devils to keep the AHL in the city.I never understand why they do this. Was told the Devils had a pretty good following in Albany. Close enough to get players to the big club in an emergency, but far enough that they can develop their own base. I understood when the Rangers moved from Binghamton to Hartford when the Whalers left, same for the Sens moving to Binghamton. The constant changing just doesn't make sense to me.
I never understand why they do this. Was told the Devils had a pretty good following in Albany. Close enough to get players to the big club in an emergency, but far enough that they can develop their own base. I understood when the Rangers moved from Binghamton to Hartford when the Whalers left, same for the Sens moving to Binghamton. The constant changing just doesn't make sense to me.
I am really curious to see how much change and flexibility the AHL (or NHL parent) is going to have to implement.
What markets will have fans? Will travel restrictions force temporary homes for some teams? Will any independently owned franchises take the year off?