Seattle's AHL team trademark of Firebird rejected

[CHRDANHUTCH]

If the Arena plans fall apart completely, do you think the WHL gives the Kraken permission to ice an AHL team in their home arena?

it may be that the AHL could revoke the franchise entirely.....that's probably part of the proposal which granted the team to begin with....

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

If the Arena plans fall apart completely, do you think the WHL gives the Kraken permission to ice an AHL team in their home arena?

This would not happen for a few reasons.

First, franchises are usually granted provided they play in the established market. There are AHL meetings once every year where teams must announce their intentions and have signed leases and everything. If their arena isn't ready, the team likely won't be allowed to play anywhere else, even if it is temporary.

Second, sharing an affiliate for Season 1 like the Golden Knights did for their first season makes more sense. Palm Springs was against the wall to ice a full AHL roster their first season simply because of the organizational impossibility of assigning +25 players to the roster, and that is just to be able to drop the puck opening night. Most AHL teams will roster 35+ guys throughout the season.

 

[210]

This would not happen for a few reasons.

First, franchises are usually granted provided they play in the established market. There are AHL meetings once every year where teams must announce their intentions and have signed leases and everything. If their arena isn't ready, the team likely won't be allowed to play anywhere else, even if it is temporary.

Second, sharing an affiliate for Season 1 like the Golden Knights did for their first season makes more sense. Palm Springs was against the wall to ice a full AHL roster their first season simply because of the organizational impossibility of assigning +25 players to the roster, and that is just to be able to drop the puck opening night. Most AHL teams will roster 35+ guys throughout the season.

Since it's owned by an NHL franchise they'll be able to put that team anyplace Seattle wants to put it and all they need to do that is a majority vote by the AHL BoG, which is a foregone conclusion. And the AHL's deadline for a team to announce its intention to play the following season is very fluid.

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

Since it's owned by an NHL franchise they'll be able to put that team anyplace Seattle wants to put it and all they need to do that is a majority vote by the AHL BoG, which is a foregone conclusion. And the AHL's deadline for a team to announce its intention to play the following season is very fluid.

The team would be on an island for travel. Minimum 12 hours in a bus. I doubt any of the travel conscious Pacific Division teams would accept that. Sharing an affiliation is much more likely.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

The team would be on an island for travel. Minimum 12 hours in a bus. I doubt any of the travel conscious Pacific Division teams would accept that. Sharing an affiliation is much more likely.

SPLIT affiliations went away years ago, BD.... after what Edmonton tried pulling while having their own franchise they owned sit.....the model changed to the current model where it's either an existing team or the franchise is delayed until the arena is finished.... no one knows yet.... a) the true name of the Palm Springs franchise, even with this sidebar over the name Firebirds.... 2) what Seattle's philosophy is toward player development either at the NHL or lower level....

Palm Springs was selected because it's close to most of the California teams already set since 2014.....outside of Colorado, and Tucson...it's pretty much a CA Division.

remember the Oilers had a 5 way affiliation, how well did that work because each team has its internal philosophy of development..... same was said about Vegas and what would they were going to do before aligning with Chicago the last three years, before they bought San Antonio.

 

[210]

The team would be on an island for travel. Minimum 12 hours in a bus. I doubt any of the travel conscious Pacific Division teams would accept that. Sharing an affiliation is much more likely.

I was only commenting that they can do whatever they want, not the logic behind what they could or should do.

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

SPLIT affiliations went away years ago, BD.... after what Edmonton tried pulling while having their own franchise they owned sit.....the model changed to the current model where it's either an existing team or the franchise is delayed until the arena is finished.... no one knows yet.... a) the true name of the Palm Springs franchise, even with this sidebar over the name Firebirds.... 2) what Seattle's philosophy is toward player development either at the NHL or lower level....

Palm Springs was selected because it's close to most of the California teams already set since 2014.....outside of Colorado, and Tucson...it's pretty much a CA Division.

remember the Oilers had a 5 way affiliation, how well did that work because each team has its internal philosophy of development..... same was said about Vegas and what would they were going to do before aligning with Chicago the last three years, before they bought San Antonio.

Chicago Wolves held a split affiliation with Vegas and St. Louis three seasons ago. In terms of temporary arrangements, it is not only possible but likely.

 

[Tommy Hawk]

Chicago Wolves held a split affiliation with Vegas and St. Louis three seasons ago. In terms of temporary arrangements, it is not only possible but likely.

I don't recall a split affiliation.......

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Chicago Wolves held a split affiliation with Vegas and St. Louis three seasons ago. In terms of temporary arrangements, it is not only possible but likely.

it isn't likely.... if that was the case BD.... WHY WAS Binnington loaned to Providence, when Vegas became the affiliate in Chicago.... the Blues were on their way out of that contract, which is why they are not affiliated now when Vegas bought San Antonio outright.....remember Colorado and how the Eagles were 'promoted' and the Blues landed in SA

the league rules state each team has to be a 1-1 affiliate now, no dormant or split affiliation is allowed, as 210 said Seattle could place the affiliate in the Seattle market....

YOU SEEM TO FORGET contracts can be amended at any point, just as Chicago landed Carolina, instead of staying in Charlotte, which until the league returns, no one knows if Florida has been announced as Charlotte's affiliate or not... the Checkers made their statement but it's not official

no one knew three years ago if Vegas was going to own or seek to own their AHL Affiliation, OR GO THE route Seattle did by petitioning the league to grant them a franchise.... the point is the Blues had no affiliation before they landed San Antonio, and that was Doug Armstrong's quote at the time Vegas bought out the affiliation in Chicago.....

 

[210]

the league rules state each team has to be a 1-1 affiliate now, no dormant or split affiliation is allowed...

No such rules exist.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

No such rules exist.

dormant teams don't exist 210, because the threat of revocating the franchise ie Edmonton...... that's why you never see them paying the League fee and not operating said member club as the league calls them

split affiliations for the same exact reasons.... what is Seattle's philosophy on player development, whether it's the parent club or the eventual affiliates, none of that is known yet.....

the AHL May want a status update from the Kraken at some point as to where the AHL Club stands, perhaps....but until that is known or those discussions are made public.....

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

it isn't likely.... if that was the case BD.... WHY WAS Binnington loaned to Providence, when Vegas became the affiliate in Chicago.... the Blues were on their way out of that contract, which is why they are not affiliated now when Vegas bought San Antonio outright.....remember Colorado and how the Eagles were 'promoted' and the Blues landed in SA

the league rules state each team has to be a 1-1 affiliate now, no dormant or split affiliation is allowed, as 210 said Seattle could place the affiliate in the Seattle market....

YOU SEEM TO FORGET contracts can be amended at any point, just as Chicago landed Carolina, instead of staying in Charlotte, which until the league returns, no one knows if Florida has been announced as Charlotte's affiliate or not... the Checkers made their statement but it's not official

no one knew three years ago if Vegas was going to own or seek to own their AHL Affiliation, OR GO THE route Seattle did by petitioning the league to grant them a franchise.... the point is the Blues had no affiliation before they landed San Antonio, and that was Doug Armstrong's quote at the time Vegas bought out the affiliation in Chicago.....

No such 1-1 rule exists. I would like to see evidence of it. You've had issues providing evidence in the past to back up your claims, so forgive me if don't believe you. Vegas just engaged in this practice. Seattle could easily engage in it as well.

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

I don't recall a split affiliation.......

Blues will share AHL team with expansion Vegas club

 

[210]

dormant teams don't exist 210, because the threat of revocating the franchise ie Edmonton...... that's why you never see them paying the League fee and not operating said member club as the league calls them

split affiliations for the same exact reasons.... what is Seattle's philosophy on player development, whether it's the parent club or the eventual affiliates, none of that is known yet.....

the AHL May want a status update from the Kraken at some point as to where the AHL Club stands, perhaps....but until that is known or those discussions are made public.....

I'm not playing this game. The rules you claim to exist simply do not.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

No such 1-1 rule exists. I would like to see evidence of it. You've had issues providing evidence in the past to back up your claims, so forgive me if don't believe you. Vegas just engaged in this practice. Seattle could easily engage in it as well.

yea, the 1 to 1 rule exists...otherwise, BD, how come multiple teams don't own 50-75 of the entire league, or the entire league isn't totally owned outright by whomever the parent club is.... only 11 active teams out of the 32 are owned and/or affiliated with an NHL Team....ie 11 independents who are not owned outright

you're mixing the AHL up with the ECHL where you rarely see an NHL Team own and/or operate a member club.... the league no longer allows independents, either, something that was phased out now 3 decades ago..... and they've required any member club to be affiliated before being approved.... something that was agreed upon almost 20 years ago now..... this is why the Chicagos, among other clubs, lost those rights to sign their own players as to what the AHL is, a "development" league.... each team has its organizational philosophy as to what the affiliate club can and cannot do..... what is unknown right now is Seattle's "development philosophy" and how they will implement that on their organization.... since they really don't know yet..... because as it stands now.....and Vegas was granted immunity rights so they're not involved in the expansion how did Vegas engage in a practice where they bought out a member club..... after doing the same thing in a PDC where they, in essence, owned the Chicago franchise, lock, stock, and organisation by implementing their philosophy on development, that's where one move on an NHL Executive level, impacts the entire organization, whether it be a coaching change, or a GM Change or even an philosophy change toward development....which is why the Blues backed out of the owner/operations and returned strictly to an affiliation model

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

yea, the 1 to 1 rule exists...otherwise, BD, how come multiple teams don't own 50-75 of the entire league, or the entire league isn't totally owned outright by whomever the parent club is.... only 11 active teams out of the 32 are owned and/or affiliated with an NHL Team....ie 11 independents who are not owned outright

you're mixing the AHL up with the ECHL where you rarely see an NHL Team own and/or operate a member club.... the league no longer allows independents, either, something that was phased out now 3 decades ago..... and they've required any member club to be affiliated before being approved.... something that was agreed upon almost 20 years ago now..... this is why the Chicagos, among other clubs, lost those rights to sign their own players as to what the AHL is, a "development" league.... each team has its organizational philosophy as to what the affiliate club can and cannot do..... what is unknown right now is Seattle's "development philosophy" and how they will implement that on their organization.... since they really don't know yet..... because as it stands now.....and Vegas was granted immunity rights so they're not involved in the expansion how did Vegas engage in a practice where they bought out a member club..... after doing the same thing in a PDC where they, in essence, owned the Chicago franchise, lock, stock, and organisation by implementing their philosophy on development, that's where one move on an NHL Executive level, impacts the entire organization, whether it be a coaching change, or a GM Change or even an philosophy change toward development....which is why the Blues backed out of the owner/operations and returned strictly to an affiliation model

That is a lot of writing. Nowhere in it is a rule to say Seattle cannot share an AHL affiliation for their inaugural season, just as Vegas did three seasons ago.

Find a rule saying this instead of writing another run-on sentence/paragraph which contains absolutely no relevant information or a single cohesive thought.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

That is a lot of writing. Nowhere in it is a rule to say Seattle cannot share an AHL affiliation for their inaugural season, just as Vegas did three seasons ago.

Find a rule saying this instead of writing another run-on sentence/paragraph which contains absolutely no relevant information or a single cohesive thought.

dude, you're the one going full bore into an affiliation.....when that hasn't even been confirmed as to what the name is the arena, and then you go on to insult Seattle by dumping on Palm Springs over travel..... why did Seattle go there because it's a shorter trip to Bakersfield, San Diego, and outside of Colorado and Tucson, that's their longest travel..... we don't even know past next season where Calgary will go with Stockton, nevermind the pandemic

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

dude, you're the one going full bore into an affiliation.....when that hasn't even been confirmed as to what the name is the arena, and then you go on to insult Seattle by dumping on Palm Springs over travel..... why did Seattle go there because it's a shorter trip to Bakersfield, San Diego, and outside of Colorado and Tucson, that's their longest travel..... we don't even know past next season where Calgary will go with Stockton, nevermind the pandemic

And you are the one who won't cite his sources. You made the claim. Back it up. Seattle will need an AHL team during their inaugural season in 2021-22. It looks like Palm Springs will not be ready in time. Climate Pledge Arena will barely be ready in time. Logistically it makes sense to do what Vegas did during their inaugural season: share an AHL team. Like Vegas, there won't be many AHL-contracted players in the Seattle Kraken organization anyways. Stop throwing red herrings. You say Seattle can't share an AHL affiliate during their inaugural season, just as Vegas did. Show me the rule that says they cannot do this. Then we can continue.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

And you are the one who won't cite his sources. You made the claim. Back it up. Seattle will need an AHL team during their inaugural season in 2021-22. It looks like Palm Springs will not be ready in time. Climate Pledge Arena will barely be ready in time. Logistically it makes sense to do what Vegas did during their inaugural season: share an AHL team. Like Vegas, there won't be many AHL-contracted players in the Seattle Kraken organization anyways. Stop throwing red herrings. You say Seattle can't share an AHL affiliate during their inaugural season, just as Vegas did. Show me the rule that says they cannot do this. Then we can continue.

even Seattle's board hasn't gotten that far yet.....

Vegas bought out St. Louis, they didn't share an affiliation, in Chicago.... the Blues went a year in between affiliations before Colorado got approved, because Binnington would've been in the ECHL, had Armstrong not struck a deal to assign/loan him to Providence..... then the Blues landed in. San Antonio after they struck a deal to replace Colorado over team 31, that's why Vegas went to an established club in Chicago.... why did Vegas have coaching rights and development rights BD, In Chicago , the Blues PDC expired, so how could they share an affiliation, if it's Vegas that got those coaching and development rights as the Wolves primary affiliate until this past season, when they released them from that contract, and then summarily no one knew that SSE was selling out, nor that Vegas was wanting to own their top affiliate.....and now St. Louis loses San Antonio for Springfield......the Henderson arena is still being built.....so the Silver Knights are where, BD... Orleans Casino in what city Vegas until 2023.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

I was right all along:

St. Louis did not have a technical affiliation with any AHL Franchise in 2017/2018, BD..... all Blues prospects were loaned, not a split affiliation...

google the Blues affiliates and there a article from St. Louis.... that said Vegas got the developmental rights, in 2017/2018... THERE was no expansion to codify the rule that the AHL requires a 1 to 1 straight affiliation, whether that through solely an affiliation as the Blues did with San Antonio the last two years (which were granted to them through an agreement with Colorado).... when the Avalanche bought the rights to promote the Eagles to the AHL, that's why the Eagles ownership held the ransom on the Kelly Cup UNTIL that was settled, that's why there's no Coplorado Eagles franchise rights in the ECHL....and the claim that Newfoundland (an expansion team) got indirectly implicated as to why the Eagles previous incarnation was not transferred over.

the only caveat was Vegas doesn't own the Wolves.... nor does Carolina.

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

I was right all along:

St. Louis did not have a technical affiliation with any AHL Franchise in 2017/2018, BD..... all Blues prospects were loaned, not a split affiliation...

google the Blues affiliates and there a article from St. Louis.... that said Vegas got the developmental rights, in 2017/2018... THERE was no expansion to codify the rule that the AHL requires a 1 to 1 straight affiliation, whether that through solely an affiliation as the Blues did with San Antonio the last two years (which were granted to them through an agreement with Colorado).... when the Avalanche bought the rights to promote the Eagles to the AHL, that's why the Eagles ownership held the ransom on the Kelly Cup UNTIL that was settled, that's why there's no Coplorado Eagles franchise rights in the ECHL....and the claim that Newfoundland (an expansion team) got indirectly implicated as to why the Eagles previous incarnation was not transferred over.

the only caveat was Vegas doesn't own the Wolves.... nor does Carolina.

210 already showed you were wrong. I need you to show where in the rule book it says no teams can share affiliates. I know you can access the rule book. Show me where you think it says teams cannot share affiliates. Until then, quit whining and making outrageous claims like saying I said Palm Springs is a bad market. You've had issues making citations before and you've gotten better but this is a step back for you.

 

[Centrum Hockey]

Sharing a team located in CA like Bakersfield for a season makes a lot of sense for Seattle if palm springs isn't ready. I really doubt there would be any issues with another parent club such as Edmonton.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Sharing a team located in CA like Bakersfield for a season makes a lot of sense for Seattle if palm springs isn't ready. I really doubt there would be any issues with another parent club such as Edmonton.

again, TBD, Centrum....

 

[Tommy Hawk]

Blues will share AHL team with expansion Vegas club

The article clearly states this is not a n affiliation. The Blues are loaning players to Vegas to help fill out the Chicago roster. The blues had no contract with the wolves. A split affiliation both would typically have an affiliation agreement with the team, at least that is what I was told many years ago by a Wolves exec.

As for the 1-1, that is not true at all. I believe the rules are an AHL franchise owner can only own 1 AHL franchise (see Orlando.GR coming into the AHL in 2001). There is also apparently wording in the franchise agreement there are limitations as to what owners can do with the franchise such ass pledge it as collateral.

They prefer a franchise not to be dormant but there are reasons why it may occur. If it remains dormant for too long (see edmonton) the league will take action such as threaten to pull the franchise and resell it (edmonton and iowa).

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

The article clearly states this is not a n affiliation. The Blues are loaning players to Vegas to help fill out the Chicago roster. The blues had no contract with the wolves. A split affiliation both would typically have an affiliation agreement with the team, at least that is what I was told many years ago by a Wolves exec.

As for the 1-1, that is not true at all. I believe the rules are an AHL franchise owner can only own 1 AHL franchise (see Orlando.GR coming into the AHL in 2001). There is also apparently wording in the franchise agreement there are limitations as to what owners can do with the franchise such ass pledge it as collateral.

They prefer a franchise not to be dormant but there are reasons why it may occur. If it remains dormant for too long (see edmonton) the league will take action such as threaten to pull the franchise and resell it (edmonton and iowa).

Not sure what you’re getting at. The article also clearly states the team will be shared and the Blues will still be associated with the Wolves. This <<sharing>> of an AHL team is exactly what I was talking about with regards to Seattle temporarily sharing an AHL team during their inaugural season.

As for the league requisitioning the team, Edmonton Roadrunners were dormant for 5 full years before they were threatened with requisition. I’m not sure of a time when a Iowa AHL team was threatened by the league other than the time when the Iowa Chops owners broke league bylaws by putting the team up for collateral against a loan. Ducks’ former affiliate violated AHL rules – Orange County Register