Question on NHL/AHL territorial rights.

[Harpoon Pete]

Can the Rangers claim the Hartford/New Haven market as part of their NHL Territorial rights? They currently have their AHL affiliate in Hartford, which means that they have AHL rights - but does that also constitute NHL territorial rights?

I am trying to get an understanding of how section 4.3 of the NHL constitution works.

Click to read more...

 

[LadyStanley]

AHL territory has nothing to do with NHL territory.

 

[KevFu]

The territorial rights basically only applies to NHL teams.

There's already tons of AHL teams in NHL territories right now:
Hartford, Bridgeport (NYR/NYI)
Providence, Worcester (BOS)
Grand Rapids (DET)
Hamilton (BUF/TOR)
Rochester (BUF)
Toronto (TOR)
Chicago (CHI)
Cedar Park (DAL)
Charlotte (CAR)

In the past, PHI, MON, WAS, TOR have had territorial infringements by the AHL teams, some in the same city. The Phantoms and Flyers played across the street from each other for for 13 years.


Most of the time, it's an effort BY the NHL team to increase interest in the sport and grow their market to outlying areas. Like, the Buffalo Sabres/Rochester Americans relationship

 

[Harpoon Pete]

The territorial rights basically only applies to NHL teams.

There's already tons of AHL teams in NHL territories right now:
Hartford, Bridgeport (NYR/NYI)
Providence, Worcester (BOS)
Grand Rapids (DET)
Hamilton (BUF/TOR)
Rochester (BUF)
Toronto (TOR)
Chicago (CHI)
Cedar Park (DAL)
Charlotte (CAR)

In the past, PHI, MON, WAS, TOR have had territorial infringements by the AHL teams, some in the same city. The Phantoms and Flyers played across the street from each other for for 13 years.


Most of the time, it's an effort BY the NHL team to increase interest in the sport and grow their market to outlying areas. Like, the Buffalo Sabres/Rochester Americans relationship

Thanks Kev/LS . That clears up a good bit.

For some reason, there is a perception that because the Wolfpack are in Hartford that it means that the Rangers have expanded their territorial rights. My guess is that they percieved that since the Rangers affiliate was there, and that there was some sort of an effort to grow fans, that those actions translated to "Ownership of territory"... when in fact the NHL recognizes it as the city limits, plus 50miles past the end of the corporate limits of that city. (Where that limit is, might be another thread all by itself)

There is a rumor going around that Howard Baldwin might be brought in to run the AHL Wolfpack, and put some sort of a twist (related to Hartford) to increase fan support - with the ultimate goal being getting their proverbial act together as it relates to the NHL. This debate came up as a result of that rumor getting some press in the Hartford Courant.

Thanks again,

 

[Jeffrey93]

The territorial rights basically only applies to NHL teams.

There's already tons of AHL teams in NHL territories right now:
Hartford, Bridgeport (NYR/NYI)
Providence, Worcester (BOS)
Grand Rapids (DET)
Hamilton (BUF/TOR)
Rochester (BUF)
Toronto (TOR)
Chicago (CHI)
Cedar Park (DAL)
Charlotte (CAR)

In the past, PHI, MON, WAS, TOR have had territorial infringements by the AHL teams, some in the same city. The Phantoms and Flyers played across the street from each other for for 13 years.


Most of the time, it's an effort BY the NHL team to increase interest in the sport and grow their market to outlying areas. Like, the Buffalo Sabres/Rochester Americans relationship

Not taking away from what you said...because I agree. But, the Phantoms and Marlies and teams like that are AHL teams "infringing" on the territory of their parent club. Now....if a team (other than the Senators) tried to move their AHL club to the Ottawa Civic Centre....I'm sure there would be issues with that.

Also...isn't Hartford like 120mi. away from New York city?!?! The Providence-Boston thing is also 51mi. according to Google maps...but the NHL's "as the crow flies" would probably reduce that.

What I'm getting at is...I don't know of any AHL affiliate playing in another NHL team's territory, blatantly anyway. Aside from the Bulldogs...and that isn't very blatant either.

 

[mouser]

What I'm getting at is...I don't know of any AHL affiliate playing in another NHL team's territory, blatantly anyway. Aside from the Bulldogs...and that isn't very blatant either.

Chicago Wolves

 

[Jeffrey93]

Chicago Wolves

Solid.

Although the Wolves were a part of the former IHL that were "permitted" to be resurrected as an AHL team, right?
I'm not sure if Atlanta decided to throw their affiliate in Rosemont, IL abruptly if it would be allowed, I'm pretty sure the Thrashers wouldn't even bother trying it.
I'm not really up on the IHL to AHL transition but I know the Wolves were part of the defunct IHL and migrated to the AHL. I'm sure that played a part.
Good call though! Not sure why but I never thought of them. Any others?

(After a brief 'google experience'...I did recall the IHL issues. The IHL started moving into NHL territories did it not? I guess that is quite relative in this thread. If the AHL were to move teams into NHL teams territories....well...the parent clubs might drop their affiliation if it wasn't a move by a parent club that was accepted by the NHL.

I attended some Detroit Viper games....they were basically moved to Detroit for the lockout. I purchased a $5 hat (bargain!) and happened to be wearing it while attending a non-hockey event in a luxury suite at Joe Louis Arena. The staff there, each one of them, referenced my hat and informed me of how hated the Vipers were by the Red Wings. If I can recall a comment made by one of the staff, "We were actually very concerned about them for a while, during and after the lockout...they were definitely our enemy."

The IHL also started signing players that were "holding out" on their NHL contracts.

I can't help but think these actions by the IHL to compete with the NHL resulted in it's demise.

I digress.....anyway...I would think that if an NHL team tried to move it's AHL affiliate into an existing NHL market their would be plenty of ways (up and up or not) to prevent it from happening.)

 

[Brodie]

The Toronto Roadrunners come to mind.

 

[Mwd711]

The Lake Erie Monsters were only recently added to the AHL. They are affiliated with the Avs but Cleveland belongs to the Penguins and Blue jackets territories.

 

[LadyStanley]

The Lake Erie Monsters were only recently added to the AHL. They are affiliated with the Avs but Cleveland belongs to the Penguins and Blue jackets territories.

And prior to the Lake Erie Monsters, the AHL Cleveland Barons were there for like five years (NHL Sharks affiliate).

 

[barneyg]

What I'm getting at is...I don't know of any AHL affiliate playing in another NHL team's territory, blatantly anyway. Aside from the Bulldogs...and that isn't very blatant either.

I really wonder how lousy an NHL team should be to be even remotely worried about some other franchise's AHL team infringing on its territorial rights. No one in Ottawa would stop buying Sens tickets or merchandise or stop watching them on TV because the Sharks, Caps or Panthers AHL affiliate playing at the Ottawa Civic Center. Basically all current Canadian NHL teams have CHL teams on their territory and I don't think they're complaining about it or trying to get them moved.

The reason why you see very few AHL teams on NHL teams' territorial rights (whatever that means) is that if you have an AHL franchise and want it to be successful, you're not going to settle for a market that already has NHL hockey.

 

[HansH]

I think people are confusing "territorial rights" with "leases". I'm sure that the Sens would have an issue with someone else just coming in and putting an AHL team into their arena -- but the way they would be able to block that would be through the control of the arena lease... nothing to do with "territorial rights", AHL _or_ NHL.

The Blackhawks might not want the Wolves to exist - but they can't do anything about it, as they don't control the lease on the Allstate Arena. The owners/managers of the arena granted the Wolves a lease, therefore, they get to play there, regardless of any other teams in any other leagues.

Now, if an _AHL_ team were in existence that objected to the Wolves infringing on their _AHL_ territory, that would be another matter, as both teams would fall under the same league.

But it's key to keep "territorial rights" and "the ability to obtain a lease from the facility" very separate from each other.

 

[Midnight]

It doesn't say very much about an NHL team if it's afraid of competition from an AHL team.

 

[will5059]

I live in southern CT just about equil distance between Hartford and Bridgeport. Another aspect of this disscussion that occurs ALOT around here is the preseption among former us Whaler fans that The Rangers are trying to "claim" the Hartford market and keep any drastic improvments to the situation from taking place and therefore keeping the NHL out of Hartford. Rangers were public enemy #1 to most Whaler fans at the end and that has kept most of us from supporting that team. I have become a Sound Tigers/ Islanders fan in a sort of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" line of thinking. These facts have made "territory" a buzz word among Whaler message boards. All that being said the rumor of Howard Baldwin coming back and renaming the Wolf-Pack the Whalers really confuses me. Weither its the fact that this fan-base is stubbern and loyal to a defunct franchise or just hates NYR that much IDK. But by the sounds of it the Rangers farm team, whatever you name it, will never thrive in Hartford. This all may be talk for another thread all-together but I thought I'd throw it out there and see what you guys thought. Go Isles....until we get the Whale back at least.

 

[Falconone]

Another

What about the San Jose Sharks AHL Affiliate in Worcester MA?

 

[Moo]

While on this subject, maybe it's OTish or not, but a MLB website has this TV map (circa 2006) showing where the territorial rights apply.

Is there one like this for the NHL? I'm just curious what it looks like.

 

[KevFu]

While on this subject, maybe it's OTish or not, but a MLB website has this TV map (circa 2006) showing where the territorial rights apply.

Is there one like this for the NHL? I'm just curious what it looks like.

MLB commish Bud Selig has put it on his agenda to re-do that map, because all it does is prevent teams from some markets from watching teams they want to see on MLB Extra Innings package.

For example, I lived in Dayton, OH for a while. Which is CIN territory. That meant, any CIN game on The Package was blacked out, because I had to watch my local cable station. That protects the Reds.

But, In addition to CIN being blacked out, DET and CLE games were blacked out. Now, there's a massive problems with this.

Those games blacked out weren't just the CIN/DET/CLE broadcasts. They were ANY CIN/DET/CLE GAMES.

Well, CIN didn't have all their games on FSN Ohio. They had about 145. So there was a game when CIN played on the road against MY TEAM, not on FSN, but it's STILL blacked out.

So, you end up in a situation where MLB fans want to pay MLB to watch MLB games, but can't. For no reason.

 

[Brodie]

While on this subject, maybe it's OTish or not, but a MLB website has this TV map (circa 2006) showing where the territorial rights apply.

Is there one like this for the NHL? I'm just curious what it looks like.

Wouldn't it mostly be a map of RSN availability?

 

[barneyg]

MLB commish Bud Selig has put it on his agenda to re-do that map, because all it does is prevent teams from some markets from watching teams they want to see on MLB Extra Innings package. (...)

Those games blacked out weren't just the CIN/DET/CLE broadcasts. They were ANY CIN/DET/CLE GAMES.

Well, CIN didn't have all their games on FSN Ohio. They had about 145. So there was a game when CIN played on the road against MY TEAM, not on FSN, but it's STILL blacked out.

I understand the frustration. But it's not a problem with the map really -- it's a problem with how blackouts are set to work.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

The territorial rights basically only applies to NHL teams.

There's already tons of AHL teams in NHL territories right now:
Hartford, Bridgeport (NYR/NYI)
Providence, Worcester (BOS)
Grand Rapids (DET)
Hamilton (BUF/TOR)
Rochester (BUF)
Toronto (TOR)
Chicago (CHI)
Cedar Park (DAL)
Charlotte (CAR)

Can add Rockford to that list for Hawks territory.

 

[Jumptheshark]

For those putting Hartford in the NYI/NYR territory rights

When Hartford moved to carolina--the NHL did not get the rights--NHL rights to Hartford ended up going to one of the creditors

there are some goofy things out there that reminds us why some people consider the NHL to be a bush league--Awhile ago someone produced a link to the fact some guy in Sweden owns the name Winnipeg Jets name and other wierd things

 

[Moo]

Wouldn't it mostly be a map of RSN availability?

Ideally, yes. You'd be blacked out of the games on NHLCI to be forced to watch it on the RSN and give ratings to them and help them sell local advertising.

But as the circa 2006 map shows for MLB, it doesn't exactly mesh between territorial rights and RSN availability. Where I live is Pittsburgh "territory" yet I can't watch a Pirates game on any random night if I wanted to because I do not have any Pittsburgh stations. Unless they're playing the Reds, or the Indians in Interleague, then forget about it! I'm not a Pirates fan myself, but I know several who are and are screwed by this.