Western Conference NHL teams consider major AHL overhaul

[deckercky]

the fact is AHL teams have a 1-1 Ratio, something that had been a league objective for years, which just happened to include the acquisition of the IHL, WHICH set the league up to achieve that ratio.....

If they did a split league, it might be more feasible if there were a few new teams, allowing NHL clubs to have a 1-1 ratio, and a few other independent options to get young players playing time. Or possibly even a few teams having two AHL affiliates (or AHL and whatever the western league is called).

 

[LadyStanley]

It's unfortunate San Diego doesn't have a suitable enough arena.

a: define "suitable"

b: Determine if the arena owner/manager actually wants to have a hockey team in the facility (San Diego Arena) and is willing to give the owner/operator a decent lease.

 

[HansH]

It's unfortunate San Diego doesn't have a suitable enough arena. San Jose/Stockton, LA/Ontario, Anaheim/San Diego

Why do people keep saying this?

I live here. I had season seats to the WCHL (then ECHL) Gulls for years. The San Diego Sports Arena is just as suitable as many of the existing "barns" in which AHL teams play -- have you SEEN some of the facilities like the ones in which Albany, Springfield, Adirondack, Binghamton, Worcester, and so on, play in?

Is the SDSA old? You betcha - it'll turn 46 before the next hockey season starts. Is it run-down? A bit - but it's also managed by the owners of the Kings, who would certainly be willing to put a little money in to host their AHL team. Plus, it was BUILT for hockey (the WHL Gulls, in 1966). The sightlines are great. It may be a little oversized for the ECHL or the AHL, but no more so than many of the other arenas in which AHL teams play (Charlotte, San Antonio, Chicago, etc).

Now, if what you mean to say is "it's a shame that San Diego doesn't have a more state-of-the-art facility to use", then you're right. But don't keep parroting the "not suitable enough arena" line when it's demonstrably false.

 

[HansH]

a: define "suitable"

b: Determine if the arena owner/manager actually wants to have a hockey team in the facility (San Diego Arena) and is willing to give the owner/operator a decent lease.

And, as I keep mentioning, the arena owner/manager is AEG Live...

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

If they did a split league, it might be more feasible if there were a few new teams, allowing NHL clubs to have a 1-1 ratio, and a few other independent options to get young players playing time. Or possibly even a few teams having two AHL affiliates (or AHL and whatever the western league is called).

prime example of why the AHL is now "Affiliation-based/required" Baltimore & Binghamton(the current champion city) being so horrible, that the only way to remedy tht is to ban any independent club from being accepted and why the League requires as part of any ownership proposal that proof of an NHL Affiliation has to be vetted as part of an approval application, the dual affiliations ended when all 30 franchises became active.... if it wasn't for Ottawa, having a franchise to activate, I'm not sure Binghamton would be back in the AHL, After the Rangers moved to Hartford/CT.

 

[SoCalShark]

Why do people keep saying this?

I live here. I had season seats to the WCHL (then ECHL) Gulls for years. The San Diego Sports Arena is just as suitable as many of the existing "barns" in which AHL teams play -- have you SEEN some of the facilities like the ones in which Albany, Springfield, Adirondack, Binghamton, Worcester, and so on, play in?

Is the SDSA old? You betcha - it'll turn 46 before the next hockey season starts. Is it run-down? A bit - but it's also managed by the owners of the Kings, who would certainly be willing to put a little money in to host their AHL team. Plus, it was BUILT for hockey (the WHL Gulls, in 1966). The sightlines are great. It may be a little oversized for the ECHL or the AHL, but no more so than many of the other arenas in which AHL teams play (Charlotte, San Antonio, Chicago, etc).

Now, if what you mean to say is "it's a shame that San Diego doesn't have a more state-of-the-art facility to use", then you're right. But don't keep parroting the "not suitable enough arena" line when it's demonstrably false.

I think the SDSA is serviceable just like the Long Beach Arena, but I was questioning the fanbase. The games that I went to when there was an IHL team and the WCHL team, the attendance was very sparse. The Ice Dogs drew better and they were deemed a failure.

Also, I have been in the Worcester "barn" in 1991 and both the SDSA and Long Beach Arena are a better venue. If you say that AEG runs SDSA, I could see the ECHL team being moved there for the AHL to play in the newer Ontario building which seats over 9K.

 

[HansH]

I think the SDSA is serviceable just like the Long Beach Arena, but I was questioning the fanbase. The games that I went to when there was an IHL team and the WCHL team, the attendance was very sparse. The Ice Dogs drew better and they were deemed a failure.

Then that's a different matter. However, if you go back through the historical attendance figures, you'll see that Long Beach never. EVER. Outdrew the Gulls, whether we're talking IHL or WCHL or ECHL Gulls, or IHL or WCHL or ECHL Ice Dogs. So, that's a factual error as well. In fact, the announced attendance at San Diego's final ECHL season was more than double the Ice Dogs' attendance that same season.

 

[wildthing202]

I think the SDSA is serviceable just like the Long Beach Arena, but I was questioning the fanbase. The games that I went to when there was an IHL team and the WCHL team, the attendance was very sparse. The Ice Dogs drew better and they were deemed a failure.

Also, I have been in the Worcester "barn" in 1991 and both the SDSA and Long Beach Arena are a better venue. If you say that AEG runs SDSA, I could see the ECHL team being moved there for the AHL to play in the newer Ontario building which seats over 9K.

Just an FYI they've upgraded the DCU Center in the 20 years since then.

 

[SoCalShark]

Then that's a different matter. However, if you go back through the historical attendance figures, you'll see that Long Beach never. EVER. Outdrew the Gulls, whether we're talking IHL or WCHL or ECHL Gulls, or IHL or WCHL or ECHL Ice Dogs. So, that's a factual error as well. In fact, the announced attendance at San Diego's final ECHL season was more than double the Ice Dogs' attendance that same season.

Well, that is my perception when attending games for the Gulls and Ice Dogs which is actual people in the seats.

The first official attendance figures on the ECHL site are for the last Long Beach season (06-07). The average was very low. So using the hockeydb.com figures, the Gulls did do a higher average game attendance than the Ice Dogs.

Next time your going to attack someone for "factual errors" back up your claim with actual data!

 

[Rocko604]

Why do people keep saying this?

I live here. I had season seats to the WCHL (then ECHL) Gulls for years. The San Diego Sports Arena is just as suitable as many of the existing "barns" in which AHL teams play -- have you SEEN some of the facilities like the ones in which Albany, Springfield, Adirondack, Binghamton, Worcester, and so on, play in?

Is the SDSA old? You betcha - it'll turn 46 before the next hockey season starts. Is it run-down? A bit - but it's also managed by the owners of the Kings, who would certainly be willing to put a little money in to host their AHL team. Plus, it was BUILT for hockey (the WHL Gulls, in 1966). The sightlines are great. It may be a little oversized for the ECHL or the AHL, but no more so than many of the other arenas in which AHL teams play (Charlotte, San Antonio, Chicago, etc).

Now, if what you mean to say is "it's a shame that San Diego doesn't have a more state-of-the-art facility to use", then you're right. But don't keep parroting the "not suitable enough arena" line when it's demonstrably false.

Because a lot of other people have. I stand corrected.

 

[HansH]

Next time your going to attack someone for "factual errors" back up your claim with actual data!

I would, but I didn't think I'm allowed to link to my hockey attendance site -- that said, you asked for it, here it is:

San Diego Long Beach
1995-96 4591 (WCHL) ----
1996-97 5171 (WCHL) 3028 (IHL)
1997-98 6755 (WCHL) 4055 (IHL)
1998-99 6518 (WCHL) 4163 (IHL)
1999-00 6864 (WCHL) 4708 (IHL)
2000-01 6512 (WCHL) 4265 (WCHL)
2001-02 6832 (WCHL) 4163 (WCHL)
2002-03 6082 (WCHL) 3034 (WCHL)
2003-04 5027 (ECHL) 2625 (ECHL)
2004-05 5678 (ECHL) 3058 (ECHL)
2005-06 5842 (ECHL) 2469 (ECHL)
2006-07 ---- 2230 (ECHL)

Never even close to Long Beach outdrawing San Diego, and more than DOUBLE their attendance in the last year of the Gulls.

 

[HansH]

Because a lot of other people have. I stand corrected.

It's certainly not suitable for the NHL, which is where I think you might have gotten confused. I wouldn't even say that an NHL team should go into the SDSA temporarily. But high-minors or mid-minors, sure.

 

[Oleg Petrov]

Pacific Coast Hockey League

Pacific Coast Hockey League

I've been thinking about this idea for a while. The league would be established to serve the needs of the Western based NHL teams and would also serve as another place for NHL teams to place prospects other than the AHL. Allow me to elaborate.

1) The ECHL folds.

8 ECHL Teams move from the ECHL to the newly formed PCHL with the following affiliate agreements:
ANA - Ontario
L.A. - Bakersfield
S.J. - Stockton
VAN - Alaska
EDM - Idaho
CGY - Utah
COL - Colorado Eagles
PHX - Las Vegas

The only other possibility might be Abbotsford leaving the AHL & Utah disbanding if CGY were to choose to do so.

2) The now affiliate-less AHL teams look to replenish their rosters (Syracuse, Worcester etc.) They use ECHL players and possibly Euro players. Some of these clubs may fold without NHL support.

3) Now there are 2 Senior AAA Men's leagues in North America. AHL & PCHL

4) The first major rule that I would implement for the PCHL would be that all NHL teams would be allowed to designate 1 player for assignment that can be paid their NHL pay instead of AHL while on loan. Clubs would apply for designated status on 1st rnd picks, College Free Agents or Euro players that won't come over to North America due to pay discrepancies. The only condition on that rule would be that the player cannot be waiver eligible.

5) Ideally the champion of the PCHL would play the Calder Cup Champion.

Post-Script:
Obviously I am aware that folding a league over night won't happen. Just wanted to throw out there how I think the 8 western NHL teams could move forward on such a proposal.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Pacific Coast Hockey League

I've been thinking about this idea for a while. The league would be established to serve the needs of the Western based NHL teams and would also serve as another place for NHL teams to place prospects other than the AHL. Allow me to elaborate.

1) The ECHL folds.

8 ECHL Teams move from the ECHL to the newly formed PCHL with the following affiliate agreements:
ANA - Ontario
L.A. - Bakersfield
S.J. - Stockton
VAN - Alaska
EDM - Idaho
CGY - Utah
COL - Colorado Eagles
PHX - Las Vegas

The only other possibility might be Abbotsford leaving the AHL & Utah disbanding if CGY were to choose to do so.

2) The now affiliate-less AHL teams look to replenish their rosters (Syracuse, Worcester etc.) They use ECHL players and possibly Euro players. Some of these clubs may fold without NHL support.

3) Now there are 2 Senior AAA Men's leagues in North America. AHL & PCHL

4) The first major rule that I would implement for the PCHL would be that all NHL teams would be allowed to designate 1 player for assignment that can be paid their NHL pay instead of AHL while on loan. Clubs would apply for designated status on 1st rnd picks, College Free Agents or Euro players that won't come over to North America due to pay discrepancies. The only condition on that rule would be that the player cannot be waiver eligible.

5) Ideally the champion of the PCHL would play the Calder Cup Champion.

Post-Script:
Obviously I am aware that folding a league over night won't happen. Just wanted to throw out there how I think the 8 western NHL teams could move forward on such a proposal.

ONLY PROBLEM, Oleg

Ontario is a Kings property, much like Manchester is.... Bakersfield wants nothing to do w/ Anaheim, Edmonton is the Primary over SJ in Stockton, St. Louis has a standing agreement w/ Alaska, the Eagles are w/ Winnipeg, and Phoenix might be an East city, and already has the Sundogs, nor do I see the ECHL allowing any of the 8to go to this prospective league.... all or any of the 8 would have to violate the by-laws or pay substantial fees to that league.... because all of those markets and its franchises, if they have to terminate any of those members, it's the understanding that the ECHL holds those rights for at least 5 years, after a franchise surrenders.

Abbotsford likely does not disband, if the Heat franchise is half-controlled by CGY, which it has since 1993, you don't sign a 10 year contract to disband a franchise within 2 years w/o serious financial penalties just as Rockford/Worcester agreed to...

 

[Oleg Petrov]

ONLY PROBLEM, Oleg

Ontario is a Kings property, much like Manchester is.... Bakersfield wants nothing to do w/ Anaheim, Edmonton is the Primary over SJ in Stockton, St. Louis has a standing agreement w/ Alaska, the Eagles are w/ Winnipeg, and Phoenix might be an East city, and already has the Sundogs, nor do I see the ECHL allowing any of the 8to go to this prospective league.... all or any of the 8 would have to violate the by-laws or pay substantial fees to that league.... because all of those markets and its franchises, if they have to terminate any of those members, it's the understanding that the ECHL holds those rights for at least 5 years, after a franchise surrenders.

Abbotsford likely does not disband, if the Heat franchise is half-controlled by CGY, which it has since 1993, you don't sign a 10 year contract to disband a franchise within 2 years w/o serious financial penalties just as Rockford/Worcester agreed to...

I am suggesting that the ECHL folds prior to this, so any standing agreements &/or by-laws would be null and void. I'm just dreaming here, I guess I'm asking that if such a prospective league would actually be viable in terms of revenues.

 

[LadyStanley]

Sounds like you're trying to "undo" the 2003 merger of the WCHL and ECHL (into the ECHL) .

 

[Brent Burns]

Having lived in San Diego and currently in Sacramento, Sacramento has next to no hockey following. I've had to drive 30 miles each way to another town to play hockey and you'll see someone sports Sharks gear once in a blue moon. San Diego has a little bit more of a hockey following but obviously nowhere near large.
Of these 2 places the only place it would work well is San Diego, but even then it feels like only a major team would work, people don't really care enough to watch minor league hockey.

 

[phxroadrunner]

Having lived in San Diego and currently in Sacramento, Sacramento has next to no hockey following. I've had to drive 30 miles each way to another town to play hockey and you'll see someone sports Sharks gear once in a blue moon. San Diego has a little bit more of a hockey following but obviously nowhere near large.
Of these 2 places the only place it would work well is San Diego, but even then it feels like only a major team would work, people don't really care enough to watch minor league hockey.

For a former SD resident to rate SD's hockey following as slightly better than Sacramento's strikes me as harsh and inaccurate. As a previous poster has documented, SD draws quite well relative to other minor-league markets. I believe SD's erratic hockey history is more a function of expensive lease agreements rather than a lack of support.

The 1966-74 WHL Gulls drew 8,000+ in 7 of their 8 seasons in the league. Despite their success at the gate the team struggled financially because of their lease, with rental payments that were 3-4 times that of other teams in the league. At the conclusion of the 1973-74 season Peter Graham, the arena's manager, and the Gull's owner, Bob Brietbard, couldn't come to terms on a new lease, thus opening the door for Graham to sign a lease with the owners of the WHA San Diego Mariners. This alienated the Gull's faithfull to such an extent that the Mariners barely averaged 6,000 a game during their three seasons.

The IHL Gulls drew well until early in the 94-95 season when their owners announced their intentions to move the team to LA the following season, primarily because of the unfavorable lease terms. The same reason I believe the owners of the last incarnation of the Gulls eventually gave up.

A well-heeled owner with a favorable lease in a market that averages 6,000-7,000 a game should result in a successful franchise.

 

[HansH]

The IHL Gulls drew well until early in the 94-95 season when their owners announced their intentions to move the team to LA the following season, primarily because of the unfavorable lease terms. The same reason I believe the owners of the last incarnation of the Gulls eventually gave up.

Actually, not quite the same reason -- the owners of the WCHL/ECHL Gulls were also the arena managers for the SDSA (AG2000 founded the WCHL Gulls to replace the departed IHL Gulls), so it wasn't lease terms that caused them to give up, unless you somehow count the terms of the master lease to the SDSA (AG2000 leases the entirety of the SDSA from the City of San Diego for an annual payment, and pockets all the proceeds from the management).

It's still not 100% clear why the ECHL Gulls were yanked - there were rumors of family dissention within the ownership group, also rumors of some kind of resentment from AG2000 with how they perceived their team was being treated by the ECHL when it came to salary cap enforcement, etc... but nothing proveable has ever reached the public, only rumors and the decision to return the membership to the league. The son of the founder of the WCHL Gulls is still managing the arena for AEG (who bought the controlling share of AG2000, thus gained management of the SDSA)