Final attempt here.
You said Edmonton was threatened by the league to have their membership revoked. No matter what you're referring to, you're incorrect. The Edmonton Road Runners only existed because of the lockout, and once the NHL returned they lost their place and the Oilers decided to split AHL affiliation. Any other Edmonton affiliate never had their membership threatened.
You then said that the league can threaten Stockton's membership like the Iowa Chops when the league cannot and you're incorrect. The league suspended the Chops since the owners put the team up as collateral on a loan, which breaks league bylaws. The Heat have never broken league bylaws.
Don't come at me again with "I'm older and therefore I know more." Acknowledge these two things above.
nope, the reason the Road Runners left Toronto is there was no lease at what is now Coca Cola Coliseum, BD, AT that time the Oilers relocated to Edmonton was August of 2004, it had nothing to do with the lockout in the NHL. This is why the Marlies are now there... Edmonton also got that attention because they didn't do it within proper timeframe of the off-season.... they did it after the AHL Season had been revealed in 2004. THE AHL threatened the Oilers with revocation because they had the franchise inactive for 7 years after the above scenario, they were told to activate the franchise or risk losing it had they not activated it or picked a market, which they did in OKC..... THE 5 WAY affiliation is what forced the League's hand and ultimately setback the Oilers prospect development. You have to keep in mind with the Chops that Howard Baldwin had a little to do with that scenario and then the whole sidebar over the Wolf*Pack and the Whale "Marketing PDC".
You are correct, but Portland was Anaheim's affiliate at the time that Iowa was terminated, something the League had never seen occur, no one then knew that Buffalo and Rochester were in serious difficulty over the health of the Americans.
WHERE do you get that Calgary broke league bylaws..... their issues are that private ownership wasn't sustainable or the agreement that Abbotsford had was by mutual decision. now whether Omaha or Quad City got a fair shot at retaining the Flames there you may have an issue with why it lasted 2 years in those markets, but no one can really answer why that happened... especially in QC, when there was a largely successful franchise just cast aside... which is why the Flames have gone down the road not to the degree OR the extreme that the Oilers did....
what the AHL wants, they usually get,and the two main things that they've stressed over the years, if not more is, they will not intercede in a franchise dispute between a tenant or member club, over a lease even if the affiliated club owns or operates or both the parent and the affiliate, unless said member club seeks the assistance of the league.... hence why Portland's territory was expanded in 2014-15, or the issues between the County, or management company that operates the arena, such as the discussion over Pittsburgh with them owning/operating WBS on an extension in good faith terms..... much the same way SJ had started initial discussions over retaining the now Barracuda in Worcester..... it just depends on how much local control the franchise has and who has control over player/coaching/executive decisions, much like you're seeing with Vegas asking for those rights three years ago to want complete control over the affiliate, and Chicago, as most affiliates are in this era, have operated independently or have made that a priority.
remember Anaheim had never been an owner/operator until 2014/2015, AND had it not been for the Oilers, putting their AHL Affiliate in Bakersfield, why was the decision made to force the then Norfolk owner to either sell, or in essence be stripped of that franchise....in return for the Condors franchise.
that continued in 2015/16 when Arizona, followed that model by buying Springfield.... most everybody thought that was the end of the relocation chatter, but here we are with Vegas looking to eliminate another private ownership group....and the fallout from that is to be determined, and you wonder why the hockey fanbase is up in arms, because where will it stop, will there eventually be no private ownership, and just the local owners essentially be operators of their franchises, nevermind the financial aspects of sustaining yearly losses as expansion now is even more of a financial hit to start a franchise at the lower levels of pro hockey, sustain it, either long or short-term .
Even expansion now is out of the question in the 2 main minor leagues with the way Worcester and Newfoundland couldn't complete it in a years time... eventually yes, but is that sustainable for a non corporation to absorb those is where it seems to be heading, not to mention McDonald's frustration with St. John's..... and he wants that same headache of establishing another team....
hope that answers your question