AHL West in 2015-16?

[Hoodaha]

I think that the NHL expansion will happen in 4 years when AZ leaves. Then the AHL will expand that same year.

Until then, the whole AHL expansion is just ridiculous.

We'll see. I think expansion will come before relocation, but it all depends on a lot of moving parts. Vegas and Quebec could be ready very soon, but the OCD folks won't like that because they want 2 Western teams. Seattle needs a building and Toronto 2, though it'd be likely to be successful, will have the Leafs attempting to block it unless the territorial fees are astronomical.

 

[KevFu]

So if Colorado and Arizona have allegedly purchased AHL teams... which teams were bought, and are going to fold to allow the AHL West to open shop??

 

[Hoodaha]

So if Colorado and Arizona have allegedly purchased AHL teams... which teams were bought, and are going to fold to allow the AHL West to open shop??

Where have you heard that they'd allegedly purchased teams?

 

[KevFu]

Where have you heard that they'd allegedly purchased teams?

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2014/08/24/report-ahl-migration-west-could-begin-in-2015-16/

 

[Hoodaha]

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2014/08/24/report-ahl-migration-west-could-begin-in-2015-16/

Ahh, I kind of dismissed that one because I doubt that the AHL is going to approve putting teams in two locations where the CHL failed. Denver drew 1,787 fans/game and Arizona drew 2,570. No one in their right mind would put an AHL team in those locations. I'm not saying that the Avs and Coyotes won't buy an AHL franchise and move them, but it seems really implausible that they'd do it like that. Then again, several teams already in the AHL make little or no sense attendance-wise.

 

[Tommy Hawk]

The article states "Cantlon’s sources say the both the Colorado Avalanche and Arizona Coyotes have purchased AHL franchises – are you seeing a pattern here?"

Yet there has been ZERO information from the AHL BOG approving any sale of any of the franchises so I filed this whole article under complete BS.

 

[KevFu]

Ahh, I kind of dismissed that one because I doubt that the AHL is going to approve putting teams in two locations where the CHL failed. Denver drew 1,787 fans/game and Arizona drew 2,570. No one in their right mind would put an AHL team in those locations. I'm not saying that the Avs and Coyotes won't buy an AHL franchise and move them, but it seems really implausible that they'd do it like that. Then again, several teams already in the AHL make little or no sense attendance-wise.

I had the same "What? You're saying TWO AHL teams were purchased by NHL franchises and it didn't make the news anywhere? Yeah, right" reaction.

But I have to think there's plenty of legitimacy to the Western NHL teams' interest in ECHL markets/franchises considering all that has gone on. This is an issue that's widely reported.

The Oilers entered into an affiliation with Stockton, made an offer on the team, got shot down... so they moved on to Bakersfield and purchased the Condors. And NOW the Thunder owner wants to sell? What happened to go from not willing to sell to EDM, to looking for a buyer?

I think that what happened is "the dominoes are almost all lined up" and the Stockton owner is trying to get San Jose, Calgary and/or Anaheim in a bidding war (and/or jump ship before he's left with a team that has no geographic rivals with San Fran, Ontario, and Bakersfield leaving the ECHL).


And as for the low attendance / "places where minor league hockey didn't work before" issue... if the NHL parent teams are going to own and operate the franchises, why would the AHL care if their asset makes money or not?

The NHL team really doesn't give a crap about making/losing money at the AHL level. It's paltry sums. Those are just the cost of developing players in the NHL teams' eyes.

 

[Hoodaha]

I had the same "What? You're saying TWO AHL teams were purchased by NHL franchises and it didn't make the news anywhere? Yeah, right" reaction.

But I have to think there's plenty of legitimacy to the Western NHL teams' interest in ECHL markets/franchises considering all that has gone on. This is an issue that's widely reported.

The Oilers entered into an affiliation with Stockton, made an offer on the team, got shot down... so they moved on to Bakersfield and purchased the Condors. And NOW the Thunder owner wants to sell? What happened to go from not willing to sell to EDM, to looking for a buyer?

I think that what happened is "the dominoes are almost all lined up" and the Stockton owner is trying to get San Jose, Calgary and/or Anaheim in a bidding war (and/or jump ship before he's left with a team that has no geographic rivals with San Fran, Ontario, and Bakersfield leaving the ECHL).


And as for the low attendance / "places where minor league hockey didn't work before" issue... if the NHL parent teams are going to own and operate the franchises, why would the AHL care if their asset makes money or not?

The NHL team really doesn't give a crap about making/losing money at the AHL level. It's paltry sums. Those are just the cost of developing players in the NHL teams' eyes.

I agree with you that the losses are nothing to most NHL teams (probably not Arizona), but why would they set themselves up to lose big? Why not buy ECHL Colorado, for example and have a building that sells out every night still an hour away. It's more money up front, but it's less losses down the line. Ultimately, I think that this AHL West thing will happen, but the markets that are allegedly being targeted (Ontario, Bakersfield, Stockton) are strong franchises that will have middle of the road AHL attendance if the numbers hold. I just don't see Colorado and Arizona doing something that makes so little financial sense on purpose. I'd think they'd be better off in Loveland, CO and Tucson (if they continue to insist on Arizona) than they would in Denver2 and Prescott Valley. If I were Arizona, I'd be trying to figure out a lease in Vegas, but that's just me.

 

[Tommy Hawk]

I agree with you that the losses are nothing to most NHL teams (probably not Arizona), but why would they set themselves up to lose big? Why not buy ECHL Colorado, for example and have a building that sells out every night still an hour away. It's more money up front, but it's less losses down the line. Ultimately, I think that this AHL West thing will happen, but the markets that are allegedly being targeted (Ontario, Bakersfield, Stockton) are strong franchises that will have middle of the road AHL attendance if the numbers hold. I just don't see Colorado and Arizona doing something that makes so little financial sense on purpose. I'd think they'd be better off in Loveland, CO and Tucson (if they continue to insist on Arizona) than they would in Denver2 and Prescott Valley. If I were Arizona, I'd be trying to figure out a lease in Vegas, but that's just me.

Just because it sells out at the ECHL doesn't correspond to AHL attendance - see Quad City, OKC.

I am not sure why anyone would be bidding for an ECHL team that they would have to move in order to move their AHL team.

And who even says these locations want an AHL team or the old AHL cities want an ECHL team?

Totally agree on why would the AZ team even be part of this when they may not be in AZ in a few years. I do not really see the Avs changing anything either.

 

[KevFu]

I am not sure why anyone would be bidding for an ECHL team that they would have to move in order to move their AHL team.

And who even says these locations want an AHL team or the old AHL cities want an ECHL team?

Because there's so many moving parts required to make the AHL West Division happen. It's about gaining control instead of hoping everything magically falls into place.

If an NHL team owns the ECHL team in the West, and owns the AHL team in the East, they simply transfer affiliations and have an AHL team in the West and an ECHL team in the East. (and the cities don't even come into play if the NHL team owns both).

The NHL teams can just sell the ECHL team after the fact.

 

[Hoodaha]

I am not sure why anyone would be bidding for an ECHL team that they would have to move in order to move their AHL team.

They would do it because they want a known, viable market rather than rolling the dice on an unproven market that is available because it doesn't have a hockey team. Years of groundwork has already been done for them in Bakersfield and Stockton.

 

[MiamiHockey]

They would do it because they want a known, viable market rather than rolling the dice on an unproven market that is available because it doesn't have a hockey team. Years of groundwork has already been done for them in Bakersfield and Stockton.

Keep in mind, too, that for teams like the Oilers and Kings, that already own / are affiliated with their ECHL West team, relocating their AHL franchise there implies that many familiar players will be in the lineup, having (at one point) worked their way through the ECHL to/from the AHL. This is very different than, say, the Quad City Flames bringing a new team name + new lineup with them.

 

[Tommy Hawk]

You guys completely miss the point. Do you REALLY think the ECHL will approve the moving of all their west coast teams to the east? That would leave Alaska as a monster outlier. And these guys can't just move them, they have to get each league's approval.

Also, there are many many markets where the lower elague team drew great in attendance and when they went to a different league the attendance tanked so attendance in one league is not necessarily an indicator of attendance in another.

The arena operators may also not want to have the team playing there go from one league to another.

 

[KevFu]

You guys completely miss the point. Do you REALLY think the ECHL will approve the moving of all their west coast teams to the east?

The ECHL really won't have much of a choice. They're not "moving their teams" as much as they're "losing their markets."

This isn't uncommon. Minor league teams get kicked out when higher-level teams come in and steal the market.

Also, there are many many markets where the lower elague team drew great in attendance and when they went to a different league the attendance tanked so attendance in one league is not necessarily an indicator of attendance in another.

But the NHL owners don't care. They want their AHL teams closer for call-up reasons. And as an extra benefit, it extends their footprint in the community. That's why the Ducks want to put their AHL team in San Diego… because it's a battleground area with the Kings.

The arena operators may also not want to have the team playing there go from one league to another.

Obviously it depends on the terms of each the lease, but you can't hold a team to the lease if the team doesn't exist anymore. It's just paperwork to meet terms and conditions.

Call it "folding" and "expanding" or "transfer of affiliation" or whatever.

 

[go comets]

the way i see it, the nhl western teams want their ahl teams in the west. the ahl owners want to keep the ahl in the east, but do not want to come out and say it. so we have Dave Andrews saying the right things such as, its in the works, its possible ect ect. meanwhile the eastern teams are snickering at all this because they have the western teams by the baby makers!! in order to have a western movement, they must form a division of 4-5 teams, knowing full well that no ahl teams are for sale or will be for sale. and if a western team inquires about buying a team, they just throw out a absurd $$$$. looks pretty simple to me......... only two western teams are in a position to move.

 

[210]

Because there's so many moving parts required to make the AHL West Division happen. It's about gaining control instead of hoping everything magically falls into place.

If an NHL team owns the ECHL team in the West, and owns the AHL team in the East, they simply transfer affiliations and have an AHL team in the West and an ECHL team in the East. (and the cities don't even come into play if the NHL team owns both).

The NHL teams can just sell the ECHL team after the fact.

The current WorSharks lease (which now runs out at the end of 14-15) had an AHL stipulation. SJ couldn't just decide to switch it to an ECHL affiliation. And, BTW, neither could the LA Kings in Manchester.

 

[axecrew]

the way i see it, the nhl western teams want their ahl teams in the west. the ahl owners want to keep the ahl in the east, but do not want to come out and say it. so we have Dave Andrews saying the right things such as, its in the works, its possible ect ect. meanwhile the eastern teams are snickering at all this because they have the western teams by the baby makers!! in order to have a western movement, they must form a division of 4-5 teams, knowing full well that no ahl teams are for sale or will be for sale. and if a western team inquires about buying a team, they just throw out a absurd $$$$. looks pretty simple to me......... only two western teams are in a position to move.

Your post is all nice and filled with cute little references....but you seem to have forgotten about the pink elephant in the room named the National Hockey League. What you forget is what the NHL wants....the NHL gets!!! If the NHL wants a western footprint for it's affiliates, they'll get it in whatever way they have to get it.
Even if that means pulling their affiliations with the AHL teams and going around them. Then you'll have a bunch of cities in the league with no affiliation and having to go independent to stay in the league. Doubt they have they funds to make a go of it like that tho.
And please don't anyone bring up the tired argument about no independents are allowed in the AHL since that has been debunked multiple times and will just start another round of crap.

 

[dmband]

The current WorSharks lease (which now runs out at the end of 14-15) had an AHL stipulation. SJ couldn't just decide to switch it to an ECHL affiliation. And, BTW, neither could the LA Kings in Manchester.

So SJ has officially opted out after next year? i thought the original extension was through 16-17 with certain opt out provisions.

 

[Hoodaha]

Your post is all nice and filled with cute little references....but you seem to have forgotten about the pink elephant in the room named the National Hockey League. What you forget is what the NHL wants....the NHL gets!!! If the NHL wants a western footprint for it's affiliates, they'll get it in whatever way they have to get it.

The NHL basically makes the AHL's financial structure possible by paying the contracts of the majority of the players. If the individual teams had to pay the salaries, the teams would all lose millions. The NHL can always threaten to move their top prospects to another league, and the AHL can do nothing about it. The NHL will get what it wants one way or the other. The only question will be how much the non-Western NHL teams will be willing to back the Western teams that want to move.

 

[210]

So SJ has officially opted out after next year? i thought the original extension was through 16-17 with certain opt out provisions.

They had an opt out for after 14-15 if certain economic conditions weren't met, and they exercised that option. They are negotiating with the DCU (or will be shortly) about a new lease agreement.

 

[dmband]

They had an opt out for after 14-15 if certain economic conditions weren't met, and they exercised that option. They are negotiating with the DCU (or will be shortly) about a new lease agreement.

Got it thanks.

 

[go comets]

Your post is all nice and filled with cute little references....but you seem to have forgotten about the pink elephant in the room named the National Hockey League. What you forget is what the NHL wants....the NHL gets!!! If the NHL wants a western footprint for it's affiliates, they'll get it in whatever way they have to get it.
Even if that means pulling their affiliations with the AHL teams and going around them. Then you'll have a bunch of cities in the league with no affiliation and having to go independent to stay in the league. Doubt they have they funds to make a go of it like that tho.
And please don't anyone bring up the tired argument about no independents are allowed in the AHL since that has been debunked multiple times and will just start another round of crap.

Eventually the NHL western teams will get their way. But that makes me wonder why did these same western teams let the old IHL fold?? They may be more likely to start another league than anything else. Either way, some ones gonna loose a lot of money......I just can't see them forcing ahl team owners to sell their franchise......

 

[KevFu]

The current WorSharks lease (which now runs out at the end of 14-15) had an AHL stipulation. SJ couldn't just decide to switch it to an ECHL affiliation. And, BTW, neither could the LA Kings in Manchester.

They had an opt out for after 14-15 if certain economic conditions weren't met, and they exercised that option. They are negotiating with the DCU (or will be shortly) about a new lease agreement.

The Kings/Manchester are "on a two-year lease" (Not sure which two years those are, when it expires, etc)
The Sharks/Worcester have a lease that expires after 2014-15?

Once the lease is up, they can do whatever. Or cover their butts in the language of the new lease. Moving the AHL team to their ECHL market and sell off the ECHL franchise to be relocated when they're done.

 

[MiamiHockey]

San Jose, LA, Vancouver, Calgary, and Edmonton all own their AHL affiliates. Yes, they have leases / agreements in place with their current AHL markets, but leases such as these generally have a penalty built in to them for one party to break the lease early. In other words, there is a price for these teams to pay to move their franchises west, and it's up to them to decide whether that price is worth paying.

For the teams that don't own their AHL franchise (Anaheim, Arizona, Colorado) the issue is different.

However, any discussion about the arena owners / operators having some power to prevent the move out west is moot. The leases are in place, and if the NHL owners want to pay the monetary penalty to break their leases and move west, it will happen.

 

[Hoodaha]

San Jose, LA, Vancouver, Calgary, and Edmonton all own their AHL affiliates. Yes, they have leases / agreements in place with their current AHL markets, but leases such as these generally have a penalty built in to them for one party to break the lease early. In other words, there is a price for these teams to pay to move their franchises west, and it's up to them to decide whether that price is worth paying.

For the teams that don't own their AHL franchise (Anaheim, Arizona, Colorado) the issue is different.

However, any discussion about the arena owners / operators having some power to prevent the move out west is moot. The leases are in place, and if the NHL owners want to pay the monetary penalty to break their leases and move west, it will happen.

San Jose has an out clause in their AHL lease. Essentially, it said that if certain targets weren't met, they could opt out of the lease. I don't know what the other situations are for other Wetern teams AHL affiliates, but if San Jose finds a location, they can move out in 2015. If they miss that window though, I believe they have to stick to the lease or pay whatever penalties for breaking the lease.