because it wasn't fast enough likely timing to get the Eagles to switch that fast.
Andrews on SXM: 31st AHL team coming 2018-19
- Thread starter LadyStanley
- Start date
because it wasn't fast enough likely timing to get the Eagles to switch that fast.
I think that it was, as hutch said, simply a timing issue. The AHL basically set a deadline for everyone to get their ducks in line and it passed without a firm commitment from anyone involved.
That being said...to go deeper...I truly think that there were a handful of players in the game at that time, not for the 31st franchise, but just in play as far as having to get things in order. It's my opinion that the MAJOR player in that scenario was and is the Colorado Avalanche. It is/was no secret that their front office was in disarray for most of last season between the abrupt leaving of Roy to the distraction of are they going to trade Duschene...who will they get back....will it be enough...what about Landeskog what about player X...I believe that by the time the All Star break last year for both leagues it was figured out that Colorado would be getting that franchise and they would like to put it where the ECHL team is/was. Problem was they really hadn't had an honest chance to go there and see what needed to be done to get the building AHL ready...thus why all the reports at the end of last year about Sakic and upper MGMT being there multiple nights to watch a playoff series. Don't want to rehash the other discussion...but...since when does the NHL GM and brass attend several ECHL games in a series??? Almost never.
So at the AHL board meeting during the break, I think it was decide by vote that A) Colorado would get the team...B) they would delay til 18-19 the start of the franchise...and C) Once they got the Eagles on board etc...they would take an official vote and approve the purchases and also the move(Probably this season at the All Star break)...it gives the Eagles a chance to stage a "Farewell season" in the echl and gave everyone else a chance to get everything together...AKA St. Louis after putting all their Eggs in a basket etc...
For what it's worth
210
Registered User
I'm starting to wonder if the Avalanche buys the 31st AHL franchise and they don't put it in Loveland...mind you I haven't heard a whisper that's happening, and yet I think it might be a possibility.
wildcat48
Registered User
It's interesting that you mentioned this because I had a similar conversation this week with a former NHL GM that summers in Maine. I won't mention his name because he's still very active in the game, but we were foursome partners for a charity golf outing this week and we talked a lot about the AHL and where its moving toward in the future.
Not to bury the lede but teams like Chicago and Hershey should be extremely worried in the years ahead about maintaining their autonomy on the hockey operations side... According to my conversation, it appeared to be an ominous warning that independent teams in the AHL are about to lose that independence in terms of controlling the player movement within the AHL because as this former GM put it "NHL teams are investing millions into player development and they not going to waste that investment by allowing someone to play day trader with their money."
Apparently, there's a push by NHL clubs to essentially gain full control over the hockey operations of each club. Right now Andrews is really holding everything together as the status quo., but once he steps down, NHL teams are planning toward pushing their agenda full forward and controlling the hockey operations of every AHL club, which doesn't bode well for teams like Chicago and Hershey. Currently, there is a group of NHL team executives working on a "rules package" that would be implement by the AHL BoG once the current collective bargaining agreement expires. A couple of the ideas mentioned centered around further reducing veteran rule, changing it or eliminating it all together.
One desire/option is that all players had to be signed by an NHL club to eligible to play in the AHL. A second idea is that the veteran rule would be reduced from five to four and then eventually three, however the number of games that classified a veteran would be expanded from its current number to 325.
Another idea that was floating around was the creation of some sort of clearing house - still haven't figured out how that would work - that determine a players eligibility to play in the AHL.
And, the old standby is that NHL teams would demand/mandate control of the hockey operations departments in future affiliation agreements. If they are met with resistance they would simply not affiliate with said team forcing that team to either go it alone, play ball or fold... I believe we call that collusion, but try proving it.
When all else fails... NHL owned clubs form their own league (NHL2) and allow their NHL brethren to join them.
This doesn't even include overall changes to the league which include reduction in games. Bottomline is that NHL teams want full control over the hockey operation of their AHL affiliates and if this becomes contentious it could make for a bumpy ride in the league over the next several seasons.
P.S. Don't shoot the messenger.
sabrefan27
Registered User
I pretty much assume that's the case anyway these days except for Hershey and Chicago. Their gravy train has been on life suppprt anyway with the changes over the last decade. I still don't get the veteran rule reduction. There simply aren't enough prospects to fill out a whole team. You need those guys to fill out a roster.
Agalloch
EliteProspects
If they want all AHL players to be sign by NHL team, they will need to grow the number of contracts, 50 doesn't seem to be enough.
UticaHockey
Registered User
wildcat48
Registered User
Let me clarify... They'd sign an AHL only contract, but it has to be signed though the NHL club, not the AHL club. The example that I'm thinking is a player like Wade Megan when he played for Portland. He was signed to an AHL contract by the Florida Panthers. He was their property, not the responsibility of the Pirates.
210
Registered User
One thing I've heard mentioned is teams would be limited to two AHL contracted vets but there would be no limit on NHL contracted vets.
Tommy Hawk
Registered User
- May 27, 2006
- 4,223
- 104
The NHL team can sign a player to an AHL contract but the team on the contract is the AHL team. If the NHL teams signs a player and puts their team on the contract, that's an NHL contract.
A number of things JUMP out at me in this...Truthfully Chicago has already in the last couple of years allowed their parent club to control the hockey ops dept , they did it with both Vancouver and St. Louis, while retaining some say in the players they had.
With regards to the vet rule that's going to have to go hand in hand with the NHL increasing the number of NHL contracts allowed from 50. I have steadily complained that the premise of a vet rule was nice...but the application was horrible...taking the average draftee...they get into the AHL at 20...in 4 years they are considered vets...the majority of them are still learning to be leaders and yet the AHL says they have to teach the younger kids how to be a pro, when they are still learning it themselves.
All it takes is 1 team to balk and it throws a monkey wrench into the whole idea...right now that team would be Vegas and trying to start up 2 teams at the same time...
There are enough independent teams in the AHL that it's unlikely that A) New rules would be needed B) Enough NHL teams would have the need to change the rules.
The teams that own their own affiliate already control hockey ops and the ones that don't generally all have a good solid working relationship with the AHL club, so I don't know that there is a need for ..."New" Rules But we'll see.
Hershey's been losing its autonomy over the past 5 years (some say it's what drove Yingst out). Currently, the Caps more or less control everything with the possible exception of ECHL depth (most of our AHL contracts are for call ups from SC, or have been approved by Washington, which is the case with guys like Bourque & Gazley, extremely popular with the fan base). Fans don't much care for it, but they really have no say in the matter. Personally, I'm fine limiting the # of 30-somethings in the lineup.
wildcat48
Registered User
Not necessarily.... A player can sign a contract with an NHL club but its designate is for the AHL. Example... Rob Schremp signed an AHL contract, but he was signed by the Florida Panthers. He had no recall status to the NHL. It was the Panthers who issued his paycheck. Taxes and benefits i.e. health insurance, workers comp, FICA & federal & state income taxes were calculated by the Panthers. The Pirates played zero role in player decisions. They merely sold tickets and advertising and promoted the team.
wildcat48
Registered User
I see this only becoming further the norm in the game as NHL teams want to have more and more control over their "investments".... Ultimately, I don't think its the best thing for the game because eventually - like what happened in with Portland - fans will begin to build apathy unless you are affiliated with your local NHL club because they lose their local identity. Even though I expect it to change in the ECHL at some point I think right now its a good move for Portland to go to the ECHL because they will get some of the identity back. Portland will be signing players for Portland, not just housing players to X affiliate.
I could envision the AHL - with much fighting from the PHPA - doing away with the veteran rule in its current form and coming up with a new formula. Maybe it would be tied into the NHL doing away with rule/partnership with the CHL where 18 and 19 year olds from junior clubs could now be eligible to play in the AHL.
Tommy Hawk
Registered User
- May 27, 2006
- 4,223
- 104
Actually, that is not a true statement. He did not sign an AHL contract with Florida, Florida had him signed by the AHL club. Florida did agree to pay his salary and such. An AHL contract requires two parties to sign the contract and one of the parties must be an AHL team just like an AHL team cannot sign someone to an NHL contract.
What is a Standard Player Contract? In the event a Player shall play in the AHL under other than an NHL contract, the Player and the AHL Club for which he plays shall enter into an AHL Standard Player’s Contract. The AHL Standard Player’s Contract is the agreement between the Team and Player which sets the terms and conditions of employment.
from the PHPA website
http://www.phpa.com/index.php/site/agreements#SPC
The NHL team is not a party to the CBA between the PHPA and the AHL therefore they cannot write a contract under the CBA to which they are not a party.
royals119
Registered User
Maybe there is some kind of agreement between the AHL team and the NHL team where they assign a kind of power of attorney to the NHL team so they can sign AHL contracts, or maybe they just have an agreement that the NHL team makes the deals and the AHL owner will sign off on the contracts. I know within the Flyers/Phantoms system if a Flyers draft pick who doesn't get an NHL contract is signed the press release will say "The Flyers signed player X to an AHL contract". If it is an AHL vet, or player destined for assignment to the ECHL it will usually say "The Phantoms signed player X".
Obviously in situations where the NHL team owns the AHL team they are signing players to both types of contracts. Maybe as a result of that other teams wanted the same ability, so the AHL and NHL created some legal mechanism where NHL teams can sign players to AHL contracts and the PHPA didn't change their FAQ to reflect that?
I HAVE TO GO WITH WILDCAT POSTED, here, TH..... Portland had negotiated that right away each time a new PDC or another team's philosophy was extended, it doesn't matter what you believe happened but essentially took another expense off the local ownership, and would've increased the losses already sustained....
point is that clause was there, you may not agree with the way it was done, but that's how our club operated, it has nothing to do with the union or the League, that was written into the PDC .
point is that clause was there, you may not agree with the way it was done, but that's how our club operated, it has nothing to do with the union or the League, that was written into the PDC .
JungleJON
Registered User
- May 10, 2011
- 306
- 10
Tommy Hawk
Registered User
- May 27, 2006
- 4,223
- 104
This is contract law. The contract is a two party contract. The AHL team that signs the player and the player. The NHL team may direct the AHL team to sign the player but the NHL team cannot sign the player themselves to an AHL only contract no more than the AHL team can sign a player to an ECHL only contract.
PAYMENT of the contract, on the other hand is completely different. The NHL team can pay the contract through an agreement with the AHL team. That is NOT the NHL team signing the play to an AHL contract. Two separate contracts/agreements. One is the AHL contract for the player services the other is the contract wit the NHL team on how that player's contract is to be paid.
royals119
Registered User
While I don't know for sure that is actually true, lets suppose for a minute that it is. In that case, the NHL team could structure their agreement with the AHL team such that the asst GM of the NHL team is also named the player personnel director of the AHL team, with the ability to sign player contracts without approval of anyone else. He therefore signs players to AHL contracts using the AHL team's name on the contract, but selects the players, negotiates the terms and signs the deal himself, without input from anyone at the AHL team office. In this situation has the NHL team signed a player to an AHL contract? Most people would say for all practical purposes that they have. If you want to argue semantics that the NHL team employee was acting in his legal capacity as player personnel director of the AHL team in order to put his name on the contract, you could say it was the AHL team, but that is really just a technicality. If a fan asks the AHL team staff why they signed that player the answer is going to be, "we didn't, that decision was made by the NHL team".
ALL NHL Owned and operated teams have that in place, so tommy again, is WRONG.... Chicago has never been owned by an NHL club, nor last I checked Levin hasn't sold the Wolves to Vegas..... agree with the majority of this, and even Florida's gm then (Rowe) all Pirates signings since 2005, have gone through the NHL contract.... veteran player or prospect.
Tommy Hawk
Registered User
- May 27, 2006
- 4,223
- 104
In contracts, there is no such thing as "just a technicality". What you lay out is exactly what happens in a lot of cases since AHL teams turned over hockey ops to the NHL club. The NHL team did not sign them to the contract, the AHL team did. The DECISION on the signing was made by the NHL team but he was not signed by the NHL team. If he was signed by the NHL team the parties to the contract would be the NHL team and the player not the AHL team and the player.
And let's say he signed the person to a three year AHL contract. After the first year, affiliations change. The player in the example is still a member of the AHL team, he doesn't get to just go to the new AHL affiliate of the NHL team as he is under contract to the old AHL team.
Tommy Hawk
Registered User
- May 27, 2006
- 4,223
- 104
Dude, not wrong. The team name on the AHL contract is the AHL team, not the NHL team. Therefore the AHL team signed the player. NOT the NHL team. So I am correct.
UticaHockey
Registered User
There are a lot of semantics here and there are differences between teams based on how they are structured. The NHL owned teams control exactly what players are on the AHL team's roster and are responsible for the contracts.
In Utica the Vancouver Canucks are responsible for all of the players whether they are on a NHL or an AHL contract. The difference is the AHL contract is officially with the Utica Comets and the press release announcing the contract will say Utica Comets. But Rob Esche and his local investors have nothing to do with the contract negotiations or player's salaries. I'm sure Vancouver has a separate legal entity that the AHL contracts are paid from but it is still under the umbrella of the Vancouver Canucks.
I have to think that the NHL owned AHL teams operate in a similar fashion.
In Utica the Vancouver Canucks are responsible for all of the players whether they are on a NHL or an AHL contract. The difference is the AHL contract is officially with the Utica Comets and the press release announcing the contract will say Utica Comets. But Rob Esche and his local investors have nothing to do with the contract negotiations or player's salaries. I'm sure Vancouver has a separate legal entity that the AHL contracts are paid from but it is still under the umbrella of the Vancouver Canucks.
I have to think that the NHL owned AHL teams operate in a similar fashion.
Avsrule2022
"No more rats"
And the AHL contracts paid under the "umbrella" of Vancouver don't count toward the NHL contract limit, right? Thus showing that an NHL team can pay for players on an AHL contract. Is this correct?
Ad
Latest posts
-
Blue Jays GDT: 2024 v2 | Fri, Apr 19 | @ SD | 9:30pm ET/6:30pm PT | Rodriguez vs Waldron- Latest: Seath The Scaleless
-
-
