# ECHL/CHL Merger rumors



## Thunder God

I found something about an ECHL and the CHL Merging

http://frozenfutures.com/2014/08/05/rumour-echl-chl-set-merge/


----------



## JungleJON

He still has the Riverkings as part of the CHL, he should read the sports section every once in awhile as they are in the SPHL.


----------



## Agalloch

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2014/08/06/report-echl-and-chl-to-merge/

Another link.

I think we will see NHL teams affiliation with AAA (AHL-30 teams) and AA (ECHL/CHL-30 teams).


----------



## JB51Hockey

Agalloch said:


> http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2014/08/06/report-echl-and-chl-to-merge/
> 
> Another link.
> 
> I think we will see NHL teams affiliation with AAA (AHL-30 teams) and AA (ECHL/CHL-30 teams).




Ah yes, of course the Las Vegas Wranglers are still in the ECHL and are unaffiliated along with the Colorado Eagles......


----------



## NorthStar

I just saw that report and thought if anyone here has mentioned it so far and I was right.. so it might happen after this coming season is done with.. wow... only thing was the 4 ECHL clubs mentioned to move above to the AHL.. who will they replace in the AHL?? That might be really interesting to find out who...


----------



## LadyStanley

NorthStar said:


> I just saw that report and thought if anyone here has mentioned it so far and I was right.. so it might happen after this coming season is done with.. wow... only thing was the 4 ECHL clubs mentioned to move above to the AHL.. who will they replace in the AHL?? That might be really interesting to find out who...




The three California teams and (I'm guessing) Arizona have been talking (for years) about moving their AHL franchises closer to their NHL franchises.

It came out earlier this summer that the AHL has indicated these discussions ARE taking place and that this could/would be accomplished as early as 2015-16 season.

It's looking more and more like a "done deal" WRT future plans.

(So, that would be AHL Worcester, AHL Manchester, AHL Portland, and AHL San Antonio that would be "relocated".)


----------



## Agalloch

Stockton Thunder (Worcester) - SJ Sharks
Ontario Reign (Manchester)- LA Kings
Las Vegas Wranglers (Portland) - Arizona Coyotes
Bakersfield Condors (Oklahoma) - Edmonton Oilers ?
?? (Norfolk) - Anaheim Ducks ?


----------



## hkymnky

At the risk of beating a dead horse Portland is not owned by the Coyotes, and are unlikely to be participating in the western migration (what with new ownership, a newly remodeled arena, etc.).

That being said, Arizona could buy another AHL team (perhaps the Springfield Falcons?) and move them west. However, of all the teams being discussed the Coyotes are by far the weakest of the bunch (just look at the unending parade of threads on the Business of Hockey board) and I'm skeptical that the organization has the funds lying around to buy an AHL club.

Also..San Antonio is owned by the Spurs (who in turn operate the building) so its highly unlikely that the Rampage would be going anywhere, especially with a greater concentration of teams to the west.


----------



## wildcat48

hkymnky said:


> At the risk of beating a dead horse Portland is not owned by the Coyotes, and are unlikely to be participating in the western migration (what with new ownership, a newly remodeled arena, etc.).




Finally someone who gets it.


----------



## JungleJON

wildcat48 said:


> Finally someone who gets it.




Well, the Yotes can still put their AHL team in another city and then Portland can scramble to find another NHL willing to relocate there.

Some AHL eastern teams will lose their franchise only to gain another and some of the smaller (poor attendance) teams will either drop down to AA, A or junior.


----------



## CrazyEddie20

hkymnky said:


> At the risk of beating a dead horse Portland is not owned by the Coyotes, and are unlikely to be participating in the western migration (what with new ownership, a newly remodeled arena, etc.).
> 
> That being said, Arizona could buy another AHL team (perhaps the Springfield Falcons?) and move them west. However, of all the teams being discussed the Coyotes are by far the weakest of the bunch (just look at the unending parade of threads on the Business of Hockey board) and I'm skeptical that the organization has the funds lying around to buy an AHL club.
> 
> Also..San Antonio is owned by the Spurs (who in turn operate the building) so its highly unlikely that the Rampage would be going anywhere, especially with a greater concentration of teams to the west.




Let's not let indisputable, well-known facts get in the way of a "expert" in the business of hockey's opinion of what is going to happen...


----------



## hkymnky

Two good points



SenorChifles said:


> Well, the Yotes can still put their AHL team in another city and then Portland can scramble to find another NHL willing to relocate there.




By no means are Arizona and Portland joined at the hip...its just frustrating how often people seem to confuse an affiliation with outright ownership. Portland has been doing the affiliation hustle for a number of years now since ending their longstanding affiliation with the Capitals almost ten years ago.

I suspect they'll manage to find a partner by the time the music stops. While Portland will always be a smaller market in the AHL, I think they have the right combination of assets to get through the turbulent times ahead. Last season was very touch and go, but I'm more optimistic about the future of the Pirates than I've been in a long time.



SenorChifles said:


> Some AHL eastern teams will lose their franchise only to gain another and some of the smaller (poor attendance) teams will either drop down to AA, A or junior.




Ultimately the prospective ECHL/CHL merger and the westward movement of AHL franchises is going to have a very big impact on the minor league hockey landscape. As you said, I could easily see markets "stepping up" to AAA or "stepping down" to AA, A, or Junior.

The challenge is going to be geography. I could see Oklahoma City rejoining the AA ranks in a unified ECHL/CHL, but Manchester may have a harder time finding a place as it is well outside the combined league's footprint. 

For all we know there could be even more pieces waiting to fall into place. All I do know is that if all these rumors are true (and there's certainly a lot of smoke), its going to be a very interesting year.


----------



## speedrissr

I would consider OKC a more likely candidate than Portland, of course, a shuffle of lesser AHL teams could end up with Portland getting a different team. OKC has been a disappointment in the AHL, attendance has never been as expected there.

Al?

RLR


----------



## wildcat48

hkymnky said:


> Two good points
> 
> 
> 
> By no means are Arizona and Portland joined at the hip...its just frustrating how often people seem to confuse an affiliation with outright ownership. Portland has been doing the affiliation hustle for a number of years now since ending their longstanding affiliation with the Capitals almost ten years ago.
> 
> I suspect they'll manage to find a partner by the time the music stops. While Portland will always be a smaller market in the AHL, I think they have the right combination of assets to get through the turbulent times ahead. Last season was very touch and go, but I'm more optimistic about the future of the Pirates than I've been in a long time.




Agreed. With Ron Cain's ownership and the franchise stability in the marketplace with the renovations done to the Cross Insurance Arena, new long-term lease and the OA Performance Center in Saco and Cain's other sport properties gives Portland an edge they may not have had several years ago.

I'm confident that if the Coyotes leave Portland will get another NHL affiliate just like they did when Washington, Anaheim and Buffalo decided to leave.


----------



## CJNewman

I don't understand why everyone insists Portland will move. If it was going to happen it would of when all the drama over the lease was happening last year not after they agreed to a new 5 year with an option for 10. As far as the Coyotes are concerned with Portland if I was to bet on it I would say that they swap with the Panthers and go to San Antonio.


----------



## JungleJON

CJNewman said:


> I don't understand why everyone insists Portland will move. If it was going to happen it would of when all the drama over the lease was happening last year not after they agreed to a new 5 year with an option for 10. As far as the Coyotes are concerned with Portland if I was to bet on it I would say that they swap with the Panthers and go to San Antonio.




Didn't say Portland would move, but DID say that their NHL affiliate would be one to switch their AHL farm team. I think Glens Falls, Utica, Binghampton, Worcester, Springfield, Norfolk, OKA City and maybe Albany would be the best best for losing their teams after all of the affiliate changes are made. Most of these teams are also in the bottom 10 in attendance in the AHL as well. But they would be good picks ups for the ECHL.

Let the negative comments begin!!!


----------



## hkymnky

SenorChifles said:


> Didn't say Portland would move, but DID say that their NHL affiliate would be one to switch their AHL farm team. I think Glens Falls, Utica, Binghampton, Worcester, Springfield, Norfolk, OKA City and maybe Albany would be the best best for losing their teams after all of the affiliate changes are made. Most of these teams are also in the bottom 10 in attendance in the AHL as well. But they would be good picks ups for the ECHL.
> 
> Let the negative comments begin!!!




This thread makes me really miss the Minor League Hockey Death Pool, which was put together by HF Board user Hans a number of years ago. 

I don't have a strong recollection of Hans's methodology, but based on my own number crunching I'd put Glens Falls, Manchester, Saint John's, and Worcester on the "endangered" list. 

Meanwhile Albany, Hamilton, Hartford, Oklahoma City, Springfield, and Utica are all on my "watch" list. 

HOWEVER not all of these teams will end up heading west. Unless they are sold (which is a possibility) the Saint John's, Hamilton, Hartford and Albany FRANCHISES (not markets) are likely to stay somewhere close to their parent organizations. 

This leaves Glens Falls, Manchester, Worcester, Oklahoma City, Springfield and Utica as prime candidates for the westward migration. 

Manchester is owned by LA who also owns the Ontario Reign, and Worcester is own by San Jose. Worcester is a chronic under performer at the gate, and LA has telegraphed their intentions from 3000 miles away. I suspect both teams will be the first to move.

Adirondack (Glens Falls) and Utica are also owned by western teams, but neither team has been in their current location for more than a season. While its possible they could move next year, I wouldn't be surprised if they formed a "second wave".

This leaves Oklahoma City and Springfield. Oklahoma City has been a major disappointment at the gate, and I can only assume the team is hemorrhaging money. Springfield's financial struggles have been well documented, and its current ownership has gone on record stating that they need help. 

Currently Anaheim and Arizona are the two teams without AHL franchises agitating for farm teams closer to home. I have my doubts about Arizona being able to buy a franchise, but I could see Anaheim buying a team and moving them out west. 

I haven't heard much coming from Colorado, but they could also be a factor. However if they opt to buy an AHL team that could leave one of the western teams (ie Arizona) on the outside looking in.

Obviously this doesn't take into account NHL teams selling their AHL teams, which could change things significantly...but at this point I'm more inclined to see NHL teams holding on to their AHL franchises. I don't think we will ever see all 30 AHL teams owned by NHL clubs, but the league is already close to 50% NHL ownership and I don't see that trend changing any time soon.


----------



## Hoodaha

*Okc*

The OKC franchise would probably be moved to Bakersfield. Bakersfield is owned by the Oilers and draws many more fans per game.

Bakersfield: 4,859 fans/game
OKC: 3,348 fans/game

With Ontario joining the AHL, Bakersfield is easy for travel. 

Bakersfield is a reasonably quick drive to LAX, where there are direct flights to Edmonton. 

Presumably, San Jose and Anaheim get teams in California too (Stockton/San Diego/Fresno?), setting up a pretty good, easy base of travel for the AHL west...


----------



## Thunder God

More News that i found

http://www.dcourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=2&ArticleID=134723


----------



## JungleJON

Frostbite Warrior said:


> More News that i found
> 
> http://www.dcourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=2&ArticleID=134723




AUSTIN ICE BATS????

With the internet, how come people have seemed to dumb downed.


----------



## JDogindy

Frostbite Warrior said:


> More News that i found
> 
> http://www.dcourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=2&ArticleID=134723




The 16-team AHL?!

Either these people don't do their research, or they are talking out of the other end.


----------



## Hoodaha

*Not to mention*

Not to mention that they say that the CHL's Austin Ice Bats could become Dallas' AHL team. Dallas already has the Texas Stars (which they just announced that they are buying). Very badly edited and researched article.


----------



## Clinton Comets EHL

hkymnky said:


> Two good points
> 
> 
> 
> By no means are Arizona and Portland joined at the hip...its just frustrating how often people seem to confuse an affiliation with outright ownership. Portland has been doing the affiliation hustle for a number of years now since ending their longstanding affiliation with the Capitals almost ten years ago.
> 
> I suspect they'll manage to find a partner by the time the music stops. While Portland will always be a smaller market in the AHL, I think they have the right combination of assets to get through the turbulent times ahead. Last season was very touch and go, but I'm more optimistic about the future of the Pirates than I've been in a long time.
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately the prospective ECHL/CHL merger and the westward movement of AHL franchises is going to have a very big impact on the minor league hockey landscape. As you said, I could easily see markets "stepping up" to AAA or "stepping down" to AA, A, or Junior.
> 
> The challenge is going to be geography. I could see Oklahoma City rejoining the AA ranks in a unified ECHL/CHL, but Manchester may have a harder time finding a place as it is well outside the combined league's footprint.
> 
> For all we know there could be even more pieces waiting to fall into place. All I do know is that if all these rumors are true (and there's certainly a lot of smoke), its going to be a very interesting year.




Didn't ya know, the ECHL footprint is world wide? Manchester and or many of the NE or NY teams will not support the ECHL. What's the deal about this league anyway? No better than D3 college hockey and the games will yawn you to sleep.


----------



## JungleJON

6768clintoncomets575 said:


> Didn't ya know, the ECHL footprint is world wide? Manchester and or many of the NE or NY teams will not support the ECHL. What's the deal about this league anyway? No better than D3 college hockey and the games will yawn you to sleep.




I was waiting for you to post on this subject - have you been on vacation Sunshine?


----------



## JB51Hockey

6768clintoncomets575 said:


> Didn't ya know, the ECHL footprint is world wide? Manchester and or many of the NE or NY teams will not support the ECHL. What's the deal about this league anyway? *No better than D3 college hockey and the games will yawn you to sleep.*




Way off. It's higher quality than D3 and even D1 and every ECHL team could beat every major junior team in a game. It's not as intense but these guys are matured.


----------



## StingraysFan

JB51Hockey said:


> Way off. It's higher quality than D3 and even D1 and every ECHL team could beat every major junior team in a game. It's not as intense but these guys are matured.




LOL, its definitely better than NCAA D1. The ECHL rosters are mostly all D1 first line players. The best of the D1 first-liners head to the AHL to start and bounce up and down and the other solid first-liners head to the ECHL. The second and third line NCAA players either move on with their degrees or head to the SPHL. So yeah, theres no argument here, just a trolling attempt.


----------



## mk80

I think a merger is quite possible after this season, however the sources that have been mentioned, considering their lack of simple research shouldn't be taken to heart. 

That said, I see the CHL limping through this season at 9 teams, then the stroger teams moving up to the ECHL and forming a true Midwest Division, as well adding onto the Western Conference.


----------



## Hoodaha

*Another article*

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/western-expansion-driving-proposed-overhaul-to-ahl--echl--and-chl-in-2015-16-091626868.html


----------



## wildthing202

StingraysFan said:


> LOL, its definitely better than NCAA D1. The ECHL rosters are mostly all D1 first line players. The best of the D1 first-liners head to the AHL to start and bounce up and down and the other solid first-liners head to the ECHL. The second and third line NCAA players either move on with their degrees or head to the SPHL. So yeah, theres no argument here, just a trolling attempt.




It maybe better but you'll probably never see an ECHL team in New England since unlike the rest of the country we have a ton of NCAA teams(20 in D1 and 33 in D3). We like the AHL because we can see guys who could play in the NHL at any moment which is also true of some of the better schools like BC and BU. Why pay and see foreign marginal talent when we got tons of local marginal talent that we can see for around the same price?


----------



## Hoodaha

wildthing202 said:


> It maybe better but you'll probably never see an ECHL team in New England since unlike the rest of the country we have a ton of NCAA teams(20 in D1 and 33 in D3). We like the AHL because we can see guys who could play in the NHL at any moment which is also true of some of the better schools like BC and BU. Why pay and see foreign marginal talent when we got tons of local marginal talent that we can see for around the same price?




Well, we'll see how things shake out. There are a lot of moving parts here, so lots of teams/markets could be impacted by this. ECHL may be the only choice when the musical chairs stop.


----------



## Royalsflagrunner77

I Sounds like it's gonna happen my only thoughts is would it hurt the E to abbsorb the chl's failing teams . Unless the E takes the stronger teams letting the other teams go then extending offers to the empty AHL markets to replace the western markets lost to AHL.


----------



## hkymnky

Hoodaha said:


> http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/western-expansion-driving-proposed-overhaul-to-ahl--echl--and-chl-in-2015-16-091626868.html




Finally! A well written article on what is likely to be a monumental shift in the minor league hockey world.

A couple take-aways:

If I'm understanding the article correctly, Puckdaddy speculates that Edmonton bought Bakersfield not to locate their AHL team there, but to effectively "squat" the market and extract concessions from another western NHL team looking for a California market. This makes a lot of sense to me as I feel like Bakersfield is a much more desirable market for a team like Anaheim than Edmonton.

Second: it's interesting to see so many sources bullish about Prescott Valley and Denver. Based on attendance neither market seems very strong, and yet Arizona and Colorado are both heavily speculated to be moving their AHL teams there. I can't help but feel like this is writers making conclusions based on geography and little else. 

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Las Vegas and Salt Lake City are going to win the AHL "sweepstakes" before Prescott and Denver.


----------



## speedrissr

hkymnky said:


> Second: it's interesting to see so many sources bullish about Prescott Valley and Denver. Based on attendance neither market seems very strong, and yet Arizona and Colorado are both heavily speculated to be moving their AHL teams there. I can't help but feel like this is writers making conclusions based on geography and little else.
> 
> I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Las Vegas and Salt Lake City are going to win the AHL "sweepstakes" before Prescott and Denver.



Agreed, Denver plays in Denver University's Magness Arena (a great old arena) which makes me doubt that the AHL would put a team in where they are 2nd fiddle. Prescott draws poorly also.

Al?

RLR


----------



## Royalsflagrunner77

So does that mean that Denver will play in the E and that E's western conference will be more like a central conference. Thus the reason for adding the indiana teams to the western conference.


----------



## Hoodaha

hkymnky said:


> Finally! A well written article on what is likely to be a monumental shift in the minor league hockey world.
> 
> A couple take-aways:
> 
> If I'm understanding the article correctly, Puckdaddy speculates that Edmonton bought Bakersfield not to locate their AHL team there, but to effectively "squat" the market and extract concessions from another western NHL team looking for a California market. This makes a lot of sense to me as I feel like Bakersfield is a much more desirable market for a team like Anaheim than Edmonton.
> 
> Second: it's interesting to see so many sources bullish about Prescott Valley and Denver. Based on attendance neither market seems very strong, and yet Arizona and Colorado are both heavily speculated to be moving their AHL teams there. I can't help but feel like this is writers making conclusions based on geography and little else.
> 
> I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Las Vegas and Salt Lake City are going to win the AHL "sweepstakes" before Prescott and Denver.




A couple things about this article. What I have heard is that the Kings own Ontario, so their AHL team moves there. Edmonton owns Bakersfield, so their team moves there. San Jose presumably goes after Stockton. Anaheim wants San Diego. 

I don't see CHL Denver going to the AHL. They don't do well. More likely, ECHL Colorado goes to the AHL. They had a really long string of sellouts and are still only an hour or so from Denver (they're in Loveland).

The Phoenix/Arizona thing puzzles me. I just don't see how a team in Arizona will do well. Plus then you're going to have big travel costs because you're isolated. If you resolve Vegas' building issues and take them, they're a 4 hour drive from Bakersfield and Ontario. Vegas is only about a 1 hour flight from Phoenix. Vegas may be off-limits, however, since it's been mentioned as a possible NHL expansion site along with Seattle.


----------



## hkymnky

Hoodaha said:


> A couple things about this article. What I have heard is that the Kings own Ontario, so their AHL team moves there. Edmonton owns Bakersfield, so their team moves there. San Jose presumably goes after Stockton. Anaheim wants San Diego.




I think San Diego would be an excellent AHL market, but the lack of a suitable venue is going to be a major obstacle. My understanding is that the San Diego Sports Arena is no longer hosting hockey and to the best of my knowledge there are no other places for an AHL team to play.

As for Bakersfield and Edmonton...that was my understanding as well...but the Puckdaddy article makes for an interesting alternative...especially since there are other markets that may be closer and/or more desirable from a marketing perspective.


----------



## Royalsflagrunner77

Didn't san deigo have a team in the echl before that flopped what was the deal with that.


----------



## Hoodaha

San Diego had an ECHL/WCHL team and consistently drew good crowds. The San Diego sports arena is capable of housing a team, but as I recall, the owners closed up shop when they couldn't get what they wanted from the city. A franchise there will do well and makes logical sense for Anaheim, assuming they can play at the Sports arena. I do not believe that there is another building anywhere on the horizon.


----------



## Hoodaha

A bit more on San Diego. The San Diego Gulls drew over 5,000 fans a game for almost every year or their existence in the WCHL and ECHL.


----------



## Avsrule2022

speedrissr said:


> Agreed, Denver plays in Denver University's Magness Arena (a great old arena) which makes me doubt that the AHL would put a team in where they are 2nd fiddle. Prescott draws poorly also.
> 
> Al?
> 
> RLR




Actually, Denver's CHL team plays in the Denver Colliseum, (another great old areana, almost an exact replica of Wichita's old arena) about 10 minutes from the Pepsi Center. They are the only tennant (I believe) other than the stock show which kicks them out for a whole month in January. Very poor attendance. If than AHL team moved there, they might work for a year or 2 if they are the Av's farm team, but once excitement wore off (and especially if ticket prices went up) it would probably be a disaster. Much better chance of the AHL working up in Loveland.


----------



## Royalsflagrunner77

Avsrule2002 said:


> Actually, Denver's CHL team plays in the Denver Colliseum, (another great old areana, almost an exact replica of Wichita's old arena) about 10 minutes from the Pepsi Center. They are the only tennant (I believe) other than the stock show which kicks them out for a whole month in January. Very poor attendance. If than AHL team moved there, they might work for a year or 2 if they are the Av's farm team, but once excitement wore off (and especially if ticket prices went up) it would probably be a disaster. Much better chance of the AHL working up in Loveland.




Would rapid city fit in the AHL


----------



## JJohn139

The whole topic of "who owns who" is very interesting. NHL teams who may own a lower level team could be a good market team and end up being the NHL's AHL team. I am personally from a CHL home town of the Quad City Mallards. We had the Quad City Flames about 4 years ago when they were the AHL team of the Calgary Flames. Now with the Quad City Mallards being a CHL affiliate of the Minnesota Wild, I wonder how things will all shape up with this possible merger. I don't think we would attract as many fans as we would need to for a possible AHL club. I am very intrigued with all these rumors and can't wait to see what happens in the coming months.


----------



## Royalsflagrunner77

JJohn139 said:


> The whole topic of "who owns who" is very interesting. NHL teams who may own a lower level team could be a good market team and end up being the NHL's AHL team. I am personally from a CHL home town of the Quad City Mallards. We had the Quad City Flames about 4 years ago when they were the AHL team of the Calgary Flames. Now with the Quad City Mallards being a CHL affiliate of the Minnesota Wild, I wonder how things will all shape up with this possible merger. I don't think we would attract as many fans as we would need to for a possible AHL club. I am very intrigued with all these rumors and can't wait to see what happens in the coming months.




I Think we will see alot of NHL teams purchasing ECHL and CHL franchises in geographical proximity to them this season. They don't want to get left scrambling when the leagues are aligned.


----------



## speedrissr

Just to add to the mess, Darryl Wolski, who tweeted the original tweet that started this latest round of articles, also apparently tweeted and deleted that "Arizona and Denver have not signed on as of yet for the CHL for this season so the league could have only seven teams", according to the Minor League Hockey Report:

http://minorleaguehockeyreport.com/2014/08/allen-americans-chl-weekly-update-rosters-merger-schedule-jerseys/

The CHL released its schedule on 7/26 last year and still hasn't released a schedule for this season, so this deleted tweet could have some legs.

Al?

RLR


----------



## Clinton Comets EHL

Avsrule2002 said:


> Actually, Denver's CHL team plays in the Denver Colliseum, (another great old areana, almost an exact replica of Wichita's old arena) about 10 minutes from the Pepsi Center. They are the only tennant (I believe) other than the stock show which kicks them out for a whole month in January. Very poor attendance. If than AHL team moved there, they might work for a year or 2 if they are the Av's farm team, but once excitement wore off (and especially if ticket prices went up) it would probably be a disaster. Much better chance of the AHL working up in Loveland.




Why would the AHL even consider this?


----------



## NorthStar

So could it be possible we might see some wild actions for sure when the AHL get some of the CHL teams in and move out some current AHL teams somewhere? I wonder if it will get downright crazy or simply planned ahead?


----------



## wildcat48

hkymnky said:


> Finally! A well written article on what is likely to be a monumental shift in the minor league hockey world.
> 
> A couple take-aways:
> 
> If I'm understanding the article correctly, Puckdaddy speculates that Edmonton bought Bakersfield not to locate their AHL team there, but to effectively "squat" the market and extract concessions from another western NHL team looking for a California market. This makes a lot of sense to me as I feel like Bakersfield is a much more desirable market for a team like Anaheim than Edmonton.
> 
> Second: it's interesting to see so many sources bullish about Prescott Valley and Denver. Based on attendance neither market seems very strong, and yet Arizona and Colorado are both heavily speculated to be moving their AHL teams there. I can't help but feel like this is writers making conclusions based on geography and little else.
> 
> I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Las Vegas and Salt Lake City are going to win the AHL "sweepstakes" before Prescott and Denver.



It’s not a well-written article…. It’s crap actually because there is so much wrong with it that I’m not sure really where to begin. It makes assumptions that are factually incorrect to simply make a point and move the article forward. The AHL will eventually create an AHL Pacific Division. I don’t believe there is much of a dispute on that, but they are not going to pull franchises from this league or that league to make it happen. Western NHL teams will only have one of three options to create an AHL Pacific Division. Own a franchise & move it, purchase a franchise & move it or affiliate with a private owner of an existing franchise..... There is not going be any absorbing of ECHL/CHL franchises. The AHL is currently at 30 teams and absorbing teams from other leagues regardless whether they play independent, go dormant etc. is not going to happen. AHL President Dave Andrews has repeatedly said they are not going to expand beyond 30 franchises so that dismisses any notion of ECHL/CHL teams being absorbed into the league. It will diminish the value of current stakeholders in the league now and current owners are not going to allow their franchise to lose value. Burger King and McDonalds are both fast food restaurants, but they're completely separate franchises. You can't all of a sudden start selling Whoppers in a McDonald's. If you want to sell Whoppers you need to own a Burger King franchise. It's the same principal. If you want to play in the AHL you need an AHL franchise. Right now and for the foreseeable future, unless the NHL expands there are only 30 franchises in the AHL.


----------



## Avsrule2022

6768clintoncomets575 said:


> Why would the AHL even consider this?



Consider what, Denver or Loveland? The only reason Denver was mentioned was because of the article. I don't think anyone on here really thinks Denver would work.


----------



## Artie Fufkin

Royalsflagrunner77 said:


> Would rapid city fit in the AHL




I doubt it. Obviously, support for the team has been excellent since its inception; however, the size of the market, and the significant increase in operating costs in moving from the CHL to the AHL, may be too much to bear.


----------



## hkymnky

wildcat48 said:


> It’s not a well-written article…. It’s crap actually because there is so much wrong with it that I’m not sure really where to begin. It makes assumptions that are factually incorrect to simply make a point and move the article forward. The AHL will eventually create an AHL Pacific Division. I don’t believe there is much of a dispute on that, but they are going to pull franchises from this league or that league to make it happen. Western NHL teams will only have one of three options to create an AHL Pacific Division. Own a franchise & move it, purchase a franchise & move it or affiliate with a private owner of an existing franchise..... There is not going be any absorbing of ECHL/CHL franchises. The AHL is currently at 30 teams and absorbing teams from other leagues regardless whether they play independent, go dormant etc. is not going to happen. AHL President Dave Andrews has repeatedly said they are not going to expand beyond 30 franchises so that dismisses any notion of ECHL/CHL teams being absorbed into the league. It will diminish the value of current stakeholders in the league now and current owners are not going to allow their franchise to lose value. Burger King and McDonalds are both fast food restaurants, but they're completely separate franchises. You can't all of a sudden start selling Whoppers in a McDonald's. If you want to sell Whoppers you need to own a Burger King franchise. It's the same principal. If you want to play in the AHL you need an AHL franchise. Right now and for the foreseeable future, unless the NHL expands there are only 30 franchises in the AHL.




I'd just like to start by saying that the bar for "well written article" has been set very very low...

Anyway, it seems like once again the confusion over franchise vs. market has reared its ugly head. I agree with you 100% that the AHL will not be expanding beyond 30 teams unless the number of NHL teams expand as well. As you pointed out, it makes zero sense from the perspective of the league to deviate from the 30/30 system that has been in place for a number of years now. 

That being said, in Puckdaddy's defense, I can see some ECHL/CHL markets becoming the home for relocated AHL franchises. Most notably Ontario and Bakersfield which are both owned by NHL teams and could therefore have their ECHL team replaced with an AHL team with little difficulty. Some of the other markets mentioned, like Stockton, are owned by other entities and as a result would need to be bought out or otherwise coerced into vacating the market in favor of an AHL franchise. 

Paradoxically, this may make vacant markets like Las Vegas more desirable as there are no franchises (ECHL, CHL, AHL or otherwise) that would need to be bought out, pushed out, or directly competed against. This last point seems to be getting very little attention in the broader discussion and speculation. As great as it may seem from a fan perspective to see your favorite ECHL/CHL team "promoted" to the AHL, the reality is that unless the new AHL team has the same ownership as the old ECHL/CHL team...you are ultimately witnessing the displacement of the ECHL/CHL team.

Up to this point the narrative seems to be that the ECHL is on board with becoming the next link in the NHL's 30/30/30 development chain. However, this still doesn't address how individual owners will respond to having an AHL franchise claim their market. It might make sense on paper to simply swap an ECHL team in California with an AHL team in New England, but if you are a local ownership group in Stockton there's little appeal to owning a team in Worcester. Which either means moving the franchise to another California market, or selling the franchise outright. In the latter case, who's buying? Puckdaddy seems to think its NHL teams as this will pave the way for relocating AHL franchises to those markets.


----------



## Avsrule2022

hkymnky said:


> I'd just like to start by saying that the bar for "well written article" has been set very very low...
> 
> Anyway, it seems like once again the confusion over franchise vs. market has reared its ugly head. I agree with you 100% that the AHL will not be expanding beyond 30 teams unless the number of NHL teams expand as well. As you pointed out, it makes zero sense from the perspective of the league to deviate from the 30/30 system that has been in place for a number of years now.
> 
> That being said, in Puckdaddy's defense, I can see some ECHL/CHL markets becoming the home for relocated AHL franchises. Most notably Ontario and Bakersfield which are both owned by NHL teams and could therefore have their ECHL team replaced with an AHL team with little difficulty. Some of the other markets mentioned, like Stockton, are owned by other entities and as a result would need to be bought out or otherwise coerced into vacating the market in favor of an AHL franchise.
> 
> Paradoxically, this may make vacant markets like Las Vegas more desirable as there are no franchises (ECHL, CHL, AHL or otherwise) that would need to be bought out, pushed out, or directly competed against. This last point seems to be getting very little attention in the broader discussion and speculation. As great as it may seem from a fan perspective to see your favorite ECHL/CHL team "promoted" to the AHL, the reality is that unless the new AHL team has the same ownership as the old ECHL/CHL team...you are ultimately witnessing the displacement of the ECHL/CHL team.
> 
> Up to this point the narrative seems to be that the ECHL is on board with becoming the next link in the NHL's 30/30/30 development chain. However, this still doesn't address how individual owners will respond to having an AHL franchise claim their market. It might make sense on paper to simply swap an ECHL team in California with an AHL team in New England, but if you are a local ownership group in Stockton there's little appeal to owning a team in Worcester. Which either means moving the franchise to another California market, or selling the franchise outright. In the latter case, who's buying? Puckdaddy seems to think its NHL teams as this will pave the way for relocating AHL franchises to those markets.




This. Exactly the reason why I think we won't see an AHL team in Loveland, CO regardless of if it would work or not. The local owner doesn't have deep enough pockets (I dont think) to own an AHL team. And I think the Eagles make him enough money to stay happy. Why would he sell? And since he's local, I can't see him relocating the ECHL team anywhere else.


----------



## mfrerkes

JJohn139 said:


> The whole topic of "who owns who" is very interesting. NHL teams who may own a lower level team could be a good market team and end up being the NHL's AHL team. I am personally from a CHL home town of the Quad City Mallards. We had the Quad City Flames about 4 years ago when they were the AHL team of the Calgary Flames. Now with the Quad City Mallards being a CHL affiliate of the Minnesota Wild, I wonder how things will all shape up with this possible merger. I don't think we would attract as many fans as we would need to for a possible AHL club. I am very intrigued with all these rumors and can't wait to see what happens in the coming months.




As a former Quad City Flames season ticket holder, I doubt there's very much exciting in store for QC hockey fans this season. The CHL will probably slap together one final (but very crappy) season, with the Mallards facing an uncertain future once it concludes. I'm skeptical we'll jump to the ECHL, especially if that league's present cost structure remains in place for 2015-16. It seems Bloomington's move to the USHL is making that particular league a far more tempting destination for any future Quad City hockey franchise.

I don't see the AHL ever returning to this market. It was an abysmal failure during its short two-year run in Moline, and there's nobody stupid enough to try it again. If the Mallards stay professional once the CHL folds, it would only be as an ECHL participant...and that's a best-case scenario.


----------



## hkymnky

Based on my research I consider Quad Cities to be one of the two weakest teams in the CHL (the other being Arizona). While they are averaging slightly better crowds than the league average (3,811 over 3,727) they only managed an average of 44% capacity at the iWireless Center. This, coupled with the lack of local ownership and the relatively small size of the Quad Cities market (just north of 380k), make for a grim prognosis.

The tragedy is that the Quad Cities market was once very strong, and I can't help but feel like the tenure of the Quad City Flames did a great deal of damage to the local hockey market (a pattern which can be seen in Omaha and Abbotsford as well). Perhaps a few years of junior hockey will help the market to recover and we'll see a return to pro hockey in a few years via the new ECHL/CHLL "super league".


----------



## mfrerkes

hkymnky said:


> The tragedy is that the Quad Cities market was once very strong, and I can't help but feel like the tenure of the Quad City Flames did a great deal of damage to the local hockey market (a pattern which can be seen in Omaha and Abbotsford as well). Perhaps a few years of junior hockey will help the market to recover and we'll see a return to pro hockey in a few years via the new ECHL/CHLL "super league".




Hockey in the Quad Cities was on its way out well before the Flames ever showed up. In fact, the Flames pushed attendance about 10% higher compared to the previous year the Mallards played in that market. Calgary may not have been a big help to the problem, but they certainly never created it. The real problems began a few years before Ken King and Daryl Sutter arrived on the scene.

The Quad Cities is a fickle sports market. *That's* the biggest issue. Teams are hot for a few years then people get bored and move on to other things. It happened with the Steamwheelers in the af2. It happened with the Thunder in the CBA. It has been happening for years now with the Mallards.

I doubt the USHL will revitalize interest in professional hockey. It is a junior product, and would only drive down attendance in this market. However, the USHL business model doesn't require 4000 fans per game, so it might actually work best in the Quad Cities long-term. Junior hockey certainly has a better shot here than something like the ECHL.


----------



## hkymnky

mfrerkes said:


> Hockey in the Quad Cities was on its way out well before the Flames ever showed up. In fact, the Flames pushed attendance about 10% higher compared to the previous year the Mallards played in that market. Calgary may not have been a big help to the problem, but they certainly never created it. The real problems began a few years before Ken King and Daryl Sutter arrived on the scene.
> 
> The Quad Cities is a fickle sports market. *That's* the biggest issue. Teams are hot for a few years then people get bored and move on to other things. It happened with the Steamwheelers in the af2. It happened with the Thunder in the CBA. It has been happening for years now with the Mallards.
> 
> I doubt the USHL will revitalize interest in professional hockey. It is a junior product, and would only drive down attendance in this market. However, the USHL business model doesn't require 4000 fans per game, so it might actually work best in the Quad Cities long-term. Junior hockey certainly has a better shot here than something like the ECHL.




Thank you for setting me straight...although I still hold to my conviction that the Flames have been one of the most destructive AHL franchise owners (second only to the New Jersey Devils) of the last 10+ years.


----------



## mfrerkes

hkymnky said:


> Thank you for setting me straight...although I still hold to my conviction that the Flames have been one of the most destructive AHL franchise owners (second only to the New Jersey Devils) of the last 10+ years.




I think the Flames have such a nonchalant attitude about the markets they use for AHL player development. Calgary's front office finds some poor sucker in a town that really wants AHL hockey then rides for free until that poor sucker can no longer pay the bills. I don't believe the Flames create the problems for AHL teams; they just simply don't care to help out very much.

In the case of Omaha, it was a market where two well-established franchises (The UNO Mavericks and the Omaha Lancers) had already cornered the hockey fan base. Calgary partnered with Ak-Sar-Ben, a group that had no idea how to run a hockey franchise in a competitive market where two teams already existed. I doubt any AHL team, regardless of NHL parent club, would have flourished in Omaha. The Flames didn't create that problem per se.

Meanwhile, in the Quad Cities, Calgary once again partnered with an ownership group that was in over its head from the very beginning. QCSV (who ran the QC Flames) was ill-prepared for the negative reaction by local fans to the name change from the Mallards. They also didn't realize that the developmental nature of AHL hockey was not going to sell in a place like Moline, where fans actually want players to become permanent fixtures in the community. Also, hockey attendance had begun a steep decline in QC years before the fact. Again, not Calgary's fault.

Abbotsford was just a bad idea from the get-go. The steep travel costs and the reliance on municipal funds to keep such an operation afloat was a disaster waiting to happen. Plus, Abbotsford was firmly in Canucks territory. None of these dynamics were of Calgary's doing either. It was Lane Sweeting who pursued the Flames with this bad idea. Sutter and King, with very few options remaining since QCSV folded, merely took Sweeting up on his offer. Dumb perhaps, but not malicious in any way.


----------



## HansH

Hoodaha said:


> San Diego had an ECHL/WCHL team and consistently drew good crowds. The San Diego sports arena is capable of housing a team, but as I recall, the owners closed up shop when they couldn't get what they wanted from the city. A franchise there will do well and makes logical sense for Anaheim, assuming they can play at the Sports arena. I do not believe that there is another building anywhere on the horizon.




There is no building on the horizon -- San Diego is mired in figuring out what to do to expand the Convention Center to keep Comicon, and how to build a new stadium to avoid losing the Chargers.

That said, yes, the SDSA (whatever corporate name it has this week) CAN still host hockey, and is actually managed by AEG Live, a subsidiary of the owners of the LA Kings. AFAIK, Ernie Hahn, the son of the former WCHL/ECHL Gulls owner (Ron Hahn) is still employed as the arena maanger by AEG Live after they purchased the Hahns' Arena Group 2000 (and thus the lease on the SDSA).

That's the problem when it comes to hockey in the SDSA, frankly -- because it wasn't the owners and the CITY that had a spat... all reports have the Hahns and the LEAGUE (the ECHL, at the time) having a spat, and thus pulling up stakes -- though as a regular attendee of the games, the announced attendance stats for that final season were even more pure fiction than most announced attendances are, so the financial health wasn't as good, surprisingly, once the owner's son-in-law was put in place as the head coach, displacing the guy who won five titles in eight years.

So, the younger Hahn, from most accounts, has been very cool to having any hockey tenant -- there were reports that there could have been a team in SD a couple of years ago, with a franchise being conditionally purchased... but E. Hahn wouldn't even offer a lease. Not "here's the costs, and they're too high", but "yeah, we're not even offering you a lease at any price".

Now, those were the owners who then got into trouble in Quad Cities, making it seem like E. Hahn may have actually made the wise business decision in that case -- but still, as long as E. Hahn is in place at the SDSA, I predict there will be NO ECHL team there unless he is forced by the corporate bosses.

I'm not sure what his feelings about the AHL would be -- clearly if the Kings decided to move either the Reign or the Monarchs to the SDSA, he would have to acquiesce or be fired... but it's less clear to me what the dynamic of an AHL owner negotiating with him would be... or even if Anaheim were to somewhere purchase an AHL team and wish to negotiate with him.

But there, we get the situation of, do the Ducks owners want to pay the Kings' owners for a lease for a team in San Diego?

I haven't got the faintest clue.

That said, I REALLY wish people would stop saying "there's no suitable facility in San Diego". It's old, yes. It's not ideal for the modern world. It could use a lot of improvements or replacements.

But it's not the black hole that Baltimore is, for example. It COULD be a successful venue, run correctly with proper fan outreach and service, like at the beginning of the WCHL days -- it just can't be left on autopilot like it was in the ECHL days.


----------



## Gearhead82

mfrerkes said:


> I don't see the AHL ever returning to this market. It was an abysmal failure during its short two-year run in Moline, and there's nobody stupid enough to try it again. If the Mallards stay professional once the CHL folds, it would only be as an ECHL participant...and that's a best-case scenario.




I wouldn't say there's NOBODY stupid enough to try again. Not saying someone WILL try but, Stupid people can sometimes surprise you by how stupid they are. Many markets worse than QC have had 1 failure after another. There's always someone "stupid" enough.


----------



## mk80

What I'm wondering is if/when a merger between the ECHL and CHL happens. Does anyone think that the Peoria Rivermen would move back up to the ECHL. They would be a final bridge peice between the the easternmost CHL absorbed team (Missouri) and the Indianapolis Fuel.


----------



## No Fun Shogun

Honestly no clue. There's certainly a desire in Peoria to move back up to the ECHL or preferably the AHL, and the market's got a proven minor league track record that I would have to imagine that there'd at least be mutual interest, but only time will tell.


----------



## PCSPounder

I don't think the CHL is in position to demand that ALL their franchises end up playing in the same cities in the ECHL. The goals would be (1) make sure current CHL owners are accommodated, which leads to (2) easing up on normal franchise acquisition requirements to let some franchises be portable, within regional reason. Peoria, Vegas (on the slim chance they actually figure out an arena), and a few other cities should benefit from this.


----------



## hkymnky

PCSPounder said:


> I don't think the CHL is in position to demand that ALL their franchises end up playing in the same cities in the ECHL. The goals would be (1) make sure current CHL owners are accommodated, which leads to (2) easing up on normal franchise acquisition requirements to let some franchises be portable, within regional reason. Peoria, Vegas (on the slim chance they actually figure out an arena), and a few other cities should benefit from this.




Agreed on both counts. The rumbling seems to suggest that Allen, Missouri, Rapid City, and Wichita are most likely to make the jump. Tulsa and Quad Cities both seem to be on the bubble while Brampton, Denver, and Arizona are (IMHO) the least likely make the jump.


----------



## Flukeshot

Having zero knowledge of the situation, I feel like Brampton joined the CHL with the hope of an ECHL future. They were so far outside the CHL market. The owners must have the hope they can one day be a Leafs affiliate and leech off that brand.


----------



## speedrissr

hkymnky said:


> Agreed on both counts. The rumbling seems to suggest that Allen, Missouri, Rapid City, and Wichita are most likely to make the jump. Tulsa and Quad Cities both seem to be on the bubble while Brampton, Denver, and Arizona are (IMHO) the least likely make the jump.



Wichita, Tulsa, and Allen are all owned by the same owners (The Steven brothers), does anyone know what are the ECHL's rules regarding owners owning multiple teams?

Al?

RLR


----------



## hkymnky

speedrissr said:


> Wichita, Tulsa, and Allen are all owned by the same owners (The Steven brothers), does anyone know what are the ECHL's rules regarding owners owning multiple teams?
> 
> Al?
> 
> RLR




I remember hearing something about Wichita propping up Tulsa last season, but this is the first I've heard about Allen. What's really odd is that Wikipedia (an admittedly spotty resource) shows Tulsa as owned by Jeff Lund and Allen owned by a consortium of Top Shelf LLC (Doug Miller and Steve Duchesene) and a trio of retired Dallas Stars (Modano, Balfour, and Ludwig). 

Can anyone clear this up?


----------



## Avsrule2022

hkymnky said:


> I remember hearing something about Wichita propping up Tulsa last season, but this is the first I've heard about Allen. What's really odd is that Wikipedia (an admittedly spotty resource) shows Tulsa as owned by Jeff Lund and Allen owned by a consortium of Top Shelf LLC (Doug Miller and Steve Duchesene) and a trio of retired Dallas Stars (Modano, Balfour, and Ludwig).
> 
> Can anyone clear this up?




The Steven brothers bought Tulsa last year:
http://www.kansas.com/sports/other-sports/wichita-thunder/article1117960.html

They bought Allen this year:
http://starsblog.dallasnews.com/201...-allen-americans-are-sold-to-new-owners.html/


----------



## mk80

Personally I could see the Dallas Stars buying the Americans when they move to the ECHL. I know we rarely see NHL organizations owning teams in the ECHL but the Devils have done it in the past, Edmonton and LA currently do. I could see the Stars buying up the Americans and owning their entire developement in the ECHL and AHL. Now with Tulsa and Witchita they'd still have to sort through the multipl ownership scenario. But do think that the Americans would be bought by the Stars.


----------



## hkymnky

Avsrule2002 said:


> The Steven brothers bought Tulsa last year:
> http://www.kansas.com/sports/other-sports/wichita-thunder/article1117960.html
> 
> They bought Allen this year:
> http://starsblog.dallasnews.com/201...-allen-americans-are-sold-to-new-owners.html/




Thank you so much Avsrule!

With that in mind, I would put Tulsa in the "unlikely" category. I admit I don't have any links, but I have the distinct feeling that the ECHL bylaws don't allow for one ownership group to have multiple teams (any links...anyone...Bueller?). 

Meanwhile, I would like to second mk80s vision of Allen being purchased by the Stars organization. Although if the ECHL/CHL merger rumors are true it could make for some very interesting book keeping since the Stars could end up having to buy the Americans from the Steven brothers before the team is admitted into the ECHL.


----------



## easternrefugee

Yes you can own multiple teams in the ECHL 
Bako and LV has common owenrships. However when that occurs the teams cannot make trades between themselves. 

For the record Kings (AEG) only owns 50% of Ontario. The other 50% is owned by Kemp who used to own LB and Texas. Kemp also I think iwns the management company of the arena which is owned by AEG. Edmonton is the ONLY NHL team that 100% owns their ECHL team. They also own the Junior and AHL team as well.


----------



## bhigo59

easternrefugee said:


> Yes you can own multiple teams in the ECHL
> Bako and LV has common owenrships. However when that occurs the teams cannot make trades between themselves.
> 
> For the record Kings (AEG) only owns 50% of Ontario. The other 50% is owned by Kemp who used to own LB and Texas. Kemp also I think iwns the management company of the arena which is owned by AEG. Edmonton is the ONLY NHL team that 100% owns their ECHL team. They also own the Junior and AHL team as well.




You are correct I know there was a time when Reading and Ontario were owned by the Kings, and yes they were not allowed to make trades with each other.


----------



## hkymnky

easternrefugee said:


> Yes you can own multiple teams in the ECHL
> Bako and LV has common owenrships. However when that occurs the teams cannot make trades between themselves.
> 
> For the record Kings (AEG) only owns 50% of Ontario. The other 50% is owned by Kemp who used to own LB and Texas. Kemp also I think iwns the management company of the arena which is owned by AEG. Edmonton is the ONLY NHL team that 100% owns their ECHL team. They also own the Junior and AHL team as well.




Thanks for clearing this up. I guess it's just the AHL and NHL that have the one team per owner rule.

With that in mind I guess I'd put Tulsa back in the "in" category.

Here's an interesting question: what if Edmonton swapped Bakersfield with OKC? Suddenly you'd have a great AA division of OKC, Tulsa, Wichita, Missouri, and Allen.


----------



## mk80

OKC returning to AA hockey would be a nice addition to make a true Midwest division of the ECHL out of the former CHL franchises. Throw in Peoria too and thats a good looking division in the Midwest, as well as shoring up the ECHL Western Conference. 

In regards to the current West being eaten up by an AHL west. I would envision a relaignment of the ECHL and a Western Conference and Eastern Conference looking similar to the current AHL. I see the ECHL looking like:

Western Conference: Midwest Division and North Division
Eastern Conference: Atlantic Division and South Division


----------



## easternrefugee

There was a recent article somewhere....Sorry I forget where I saw it. It stated that Bako will go to the AHL which is no surprise. However what it did say in terms of OKC is that it would remain AHL and would be sold to the last western team to make a decision.

As of today only Bako and Ontario are in place. Texas is presently buyign their AHL team but the rest of the Cali teams SJ and Anaheim have yet to make a move.


----------



## CJNewman

easternrefugee said:


> There was a recent article somewhere....Sorry I forget where I saw it. It stated that Bako will go to the AHL which is no surprise. However what it did say in terms of OKC is that it would remain AHL and would be sold to the last western team to make a decision.
> 
> As of today only Bako and Ontario are in place. Texas is presently buyign their AHL team but the rest of the Cali teams SJ and Anaheim have yet to make a move.




In all seriousness where did you read this. According to nextimpulsesports.com the Thunder are moving there D-League team from Tulsa to the Cox Center. Also I'm curious to read how Bakersfield and Ontario are already in place for next year.


----------



## hkymnky

CJNewman said:


> In all seriousness where did you read this. According to nextimpulsesports.com the Thunder are moving there D-League team from Tulsa to the Cox Center. Also I'm curious to read how Bakersfield and Ontario are already in place for next year.




Seeing as how Bakersfield and Ontario are both owned by NHL clubs (Edmonton and LA) and both teams also own their AHL affiliates (Oklahoma City and Manchester) its understandable that folks are coming to the conclusion that things are "in place" for both markets to join the AHL.



easternrefugee said:


> As of today only Bako and Ontario are in place. Texas is presently buyign their AHL team but the rest of the Cali teams SJ and Anaheim have yet to make a move.




San Jose actually owns their AHL affiliate (Worcester) so at this point its just a matter of finding an available market. Lots of people have been assuming Stockton, but that would require buying out the owners of the Stockton Thunder. While this is certainly a possibility, there may be other venues/markets close to SJ that people are overlooking. 

Totally speculating here, but what about SF? My understanding is that the owner of the Bulls invested a lot of money into the Cow Palace before ultimately pulling the plug. Similarly, what about Fresno (a low level junior team is a lot easier to buy out/displace than a successful ECHL team) or Sacramento (any idea if the new arena for the Kings with have an ice plant)?


----------



## Hoodaha

hkymnky said:


> Seeing as how Bakersfield and Ontario are both owned by NHL clubs (Edmonton and LA) and both teams also own their AHL affiliates (Oklahoma City and Manchester) its understandable that folks are coming to the conclusion that things are "in place" for both markets to join the AHL.
> 
> 
> 
> San Jose actually owns their AHL affiliate (Worcester) so at this point its just a matter of finding an available market. Lots of people have been assuming Stockton, but that would require buying out the owners of the Stockton Thunder. While this is certainly a possibility, there may be other venues/markets close to SJ that people are overlooking.
> 
> Totally speculating here, but what about SF? My understanding is that the owner of the Bulls invested a lot of money into the Cow Palace before ultimately pulling the plug. Similarly, what about Fresno (a low level junior team is a lot easier to buy out/displace than a successful ECHL team) or Sacramento (any idea if the new arena for the Kings with have an ice plant)?




SF has repeatedly been shown to be a terrible market for minor league hockey. The Bulls owner did put money into improving the Cow Palace, but the building is still extremely old (built in 1941). It's also not near public transportation, from what I understand. Beyond that, the costs of living in SF are astronomical compared to other markets in the AHL/ECHL. I really don't see anyone rolling the dice on this. People act as though it's so expensive to buy an ECHL franchise that an NHL team won't do it, but what does it really cost? Maybe the cost of one mid-level NHL player's salary for a year? It's nothing to these teams. Stockton's geographically close, draws well, and has low cost of living compared to the Bay area. 

Fresno got burned a little bit last time they had pro hockey, and I've heard that the city council is still quite cautious about it. There's also the question of where to play. Selland is very old and not the best venue, the arena at the college is too big and means getting last choice on dates behind things like women's volleyball. I think that Fresno can work, but I don't think it'll be anyone's first choice. I could see it coming in during a second or third wave as some of the currently active markets start to be snatched up and leases expire for remaining Western teams.

As for Sacramento, I've always thought it would be a great market for hockey, but it never gets off the ground. I believe that I've heard that the NBA team has first right of refusal, so if they don't want another tenant in their building, they can reject it (I may be mixing this up with Oakland). I've also heard that there are difficulties with producing ice. I have trouble believing that an NBA arena wouldn't be equipped for ice, so that may be an issue for alternate buildings. To tell you the truth, I don't know why Sacramento never happens, but there have been hurdles there for as long as I can remember. 

I believe the other poster was referring to the puckdaddy yahoo article that speculated that Katz is tight with his money and said he'd probably flip OKC for profit while bringing in Bakersfield. The only problem with this is that he has ONE AHL franchise. He can move it to Bakersfield, but then there's no AHL franchise to sell in OKC. If he sells OKC as an AHL franchise, he no longer has an AHL team. More likely, he just switches OKC and Bakersfield's league affiliations, making Bakersfield AHL and OKC ECHL. If the ECHL/CHL merger rumors are true, this would make a lot of logical sense.


----------



## Royalsflagrunner77

Hear is my question if all this does happen what happens to the empty AHL Markets in the east would the E just move in . And if so would those markets accept the E just have hockey in their town or. Do think they will reject it becuase of the level of play being less then what they are used to.


----------



## Gibbie42

Something's afoot with all this. Facebook blew up last night with rumors of the Cutthroats and the Sundogs folding, Rapid City going dark, the CHL being dead, the Stevens brothers (who own Wichita, Tulsa and Allen) killing the merger, the merger heating up, etc etc etc. Basically any variant you can think of is being speculated. There is supposed to be some sort of announcement around noon today (CDT). It does seem rather likely that there will be somewhat less than 9 teams playing for the coming season.


----------



## GareFan18

Gibbie42 said:


> Something's afoot with all this. Facebook blew up last night with rumors of the Cutthroats and the Sundogs folding, Rapid City going dark, the CHL being dead, the Stevens brothers (who own Wichita, Tulsa and Allen) killing the merger, the merger heating up, etc etc etc. Basically any variant you can think of is being speculated. There is supposed to be some sort of announcement around noon today (CDT). It does seem rather likely that there will be somewhat less than 9 teams playing for the coming season.




Here is my guess. The league will have one last season. All that is left is to negotiate the merger agreement with ECHL. 

6 teams in 2014-2105 -- Missouri, Wichita, Allen, Tulsa, RC and QC. Four of those teams join ECHL. Tulsa goes NAHL. QC goes USHL. 

Only a guess.


----------



## Starsfan24

> @darrylwolski
> 
> Denver has ceased operations players have been informed #chl




Yep.


----------



## mk80

Not too surprising here. We all figured something besides the odd number of teams had to be holding up the schedule. Plus Denver's long term future has been looking bleak for years. I also figured something was (pardon the pun) fishy in Denver when Colorado elected to affiliate with Fort Wayne in the ECHL instead of continuing their partnership with Denver.


----------



## HansH

easternrefugee said:


> For the record Kings (AEG) only owns 50% of Ontario. The other 50% is owned by Kemp who used to own LB and Texas.




This was true when the Reign first started playing, but I'm pretty sure in the years since then that AEG has purchased the remaining 50% of the franchise from Kemp. In fact, I'm pretty sure the Reign franchise IS (on paper) the relocated Texas Wildcatters franchise. So, I haven't looked it up lately, but I'm pretty sure AEG are now 100% owners of ECHL Ontario.


----------



## Francis10

GareFan18 said:


> Here is my guess. The league will have one last season. All that is left is to negotiate the merger agreement with ECHL.
> 
> 6 teams in 2014-2105 -- Missouri, Wichita, Allen, Tulsa, RC and QC. Four of those teams join ECHL. Tulsa goes NAHL. QC goes USHL.
> 
> Only a guess.




Thats probably what happens. I can see Tulsa though making the jump to ECHL. Great history, arena, and fanbase.


----------



## mk80

I think QC could be brought in as well and have a short run in the ECHL before going to juniors. Something inside me just doesn't that market dropping to juniors right away. 

And I also see Tulsa going into the ECHL especially under the Stevens Brothers, they'd be a quick and easy road trip in that speculated CHL division of Allen, Missouri, Witchita, Tulsa, and (eventually) OKC. Plus QC and maybe Peoria again. Rapid City moves into the Mountain Division.

My big wish (please God let it happen) is the Mavericks becoming the ECHL affiliate of the Blues. They've already worked with the Wolves for the past 4-5 years.


----------



## hkymnky

mk80 said:


> I think QC could be brought in as well and have a short run in the ECHL before going to juniors. Something inside me just doesn't that market dropping to juniors right away.
> 
> And I also see Tulsa going into the ECHL especially under the Stevens Brothers, they'd be a quick and easy road trip in that speculated CHL division of Allen, Missouri, Witchita, Tulsa, and (eventually) OKC. Plus QC and maybe Peoria again. Rapid City moves into the Mountain Division.
> 
> My big wish (please God let it happen) is the Mavericks becoming the ECHL affiliate of the Blues. They've already worked with the Wolves for the past 4-5 years.




Agree 100%. Its still way too early to know with any certainty, but I could totally see a ECHL western conference with:

Mountain Division
Alaska
Idaho
Utah
Colorado
Rapid City

Central Division
Wichita
Tulsa
Allen
OKC
Missouri
(plus special guests QC or Peoria?)

Now obviously this could all go out the window simply by having an AHL team move into Utah or Colorado (I don't see the AHL in Alaska, Idaho or Rapid City any time soon) for everything to fall apart...but at this moment in time it looks pretty sweet.

As for a Missouri - St. Louis affiliation, you may just get your wish. From what I understand St. Louis currently shares Kalamazoo with Vancouver, and if the ECHL truly aspires to being part a 30/30/30 system then St. Louis could be looking for a dedicated AA partner.


----------



## mk80

Well Kalamazoo added Columbus as an affiliate so they are now shared between the Canucks and Blue Jackets. The Chicago Wolves did remain as an independent affiliate as they are with the Mavericks, so the Blues are without a true ECHL affiliate now.


----------



## easternrefugee

http://http://mayorsmanor.com/2014/04/major-news-kings-preparing-to-move-top-prospects-to-socal/

This is just one article that talks aobut the move to the AHL.

And another one....

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/puck-daddy/western-expansion-driving-proposed-overhaul-to-ahl--echl--and-chl-in-2015-16-091626868.html

Thsi article is essentially a summation of evey other article that has come out on the net.

http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2014/8/7/5976075/ahl-west-echl-chl-realignment-minor-league-hockey


----------



## Cyclones Rock

HansH said:


> This was true when the Reign first started playing, but I'm pretty sure in the years since then that AEG has purchased the remaining 50% of the franchise from Kemp. In fact, *I'm pretty sure the Reign franchise IS (on paper) the relocated Texas Wildcatters franchise*. So, I haven't looked it up lately, but I'm pretty sure AEG are now 100% owners of ECHL Ontario.




You are correct.



> The Texas Wildcatters, who took their name from Texas wildcatters, were an ECHL team based in Beaumont, Texas. They played their home games at the Ford Arena. They were the affiliate of the Florida Panthers in 2004â€“2005. The team played in Huntington, West Virginia and were known as the Huntington Blizzard from 1993â€“2000 in the Big Sandy Superstore Arena.
> 
> *The Wildcatters relocated to Ontario, California, and were renamed Ontario Reign.* The franchise's last game as the Wildcatters was a 4â€“1 loss to the Columbia Inferno on April 25, 2008, at Ford Arena.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Wildcatters

ECHL franchise histories can be quite interesting. My team, the Cincinnati Cyclones of the ECHL, used to be the Miami Matadors who in turn used to be the Louisville Riverfrogs. But, wait! My team, also the Cincinnati Cyclones of the ECHL, became the Birmingham Bulls and then the Atlantic City Boardwalk Bullies and is now the Stockton Thunder. There have been 2 incarnations of ECHL hockey in Cincinnati with a gap of almost a decade between the two allowing for these oddball franchise history facts.


----------



## easternrefugee

According to this article when Oilers bought Bako, it essentially stated that no NHL team owns their ECHL affiliate.

http://www.turnto23.com/news/local-news/bakersfield-condors-could-be-sold-to-nhls-edmonton-oilers-011513



> No NHL team currently owns a majority share of an ECHL team




Based on that statement the LA Kings do not own the majority share of the Reign. Kemp owned the Long Beacha nd he moved it to Texas. When it moved to Ontario AEG was involved but Kemp I think is still a majority owner.


----------



## jabberoski

easternrefugee said:


> Kemp owned the Long Beacha nd he moved it to Texas. When it moved to Ontario AEG was involved but Kemp I think is still a majority owner.




No. Long Beach was only in Long Beach. They joined the ECHL along with the other WCHL teams for the 2003-04 season and then folded following the 2006-07 season. 

Texas was the relocation of the Huntington Blizzard, and then moved to Ontario.

In fact, Long Beach and Texas were in the league at the same time, from 2003-04 until the Ice Dogs folded.


----------



## Royalsflagrunner77

So do you guys think Denver and arizona folded hear about the merger thinking they can try to focus their attention to selling the franchises to get partners or to gain the interest of NHL franchises .


----------



## PCSPounder

Royalsflagrunner77 said:


> So do you guys think Denver and arizona folded hear about the merger thinking they can try to focus their attention to selling the franchises to get partners or to gain the interest of NHL franchises .




How about a two-part answer?

Denver- NO WAY.

Arizona- It's all they got to hang their hat on.


----------



## CrazyEddie20

PCSPounder said:


> How about a two-part answer?
> 
> Denver- NO WAY.
> 
> Arizona- It's all they got to hang their hat on.




Arizona is a dead market.


----------



## StingraysFan

The Colorado Eagles of the ECHL has just scheduled a home and home with the Rapid City Rush of the CHL for Oct. 15th and 16th. Is that normal??


----------



## CrazyEddie20

StingraysFan said:


> The Colorado Eagles of the ECHL has just scheduled a home and home with the Rapid City Rush of the CHL for Oct. 15th and 16th. Is that normal??




It's happened before. In the 2007 preseason, there we games between CHL and ECHL teams. The ECHL won all of them, often using players that were cut during training camp and went on to be first line players... in the CHL.

Colorado will crush Rapid City.


----------



## Clinton Comets EHL

Royalsflagrunner77 said:


> Hear is my question if all this does happen what happens to the empty AHL Markets in the east would the E just move in . And if so would those markets accept the E just have hockey in their town or. Do think they will reject it becuase of the level of play being less then what they are used to.



Especially in New England where there are dozens of D1 teams within close proximity, it would be a hard sell.

Glens Falls basically rejected an ECHL team, holding out for the AHL.

Couldn't imagine Springfield, Manchester, Worcester, Binghamton, Utica and /or any other of the rumored teams being thrilled with watching practice hockey.


----------



## JDogindy

6768clintoncomets575 said:


> Especially in New England where there are dozens of D1 teams within close proximity, it would be a hard sell.
> 
> Glens Falls basically rejected an ECHL team, holding out for the AHL.
> 
> Couldn't imagine Springfield, Manchester, Worcester, Binghamton, Utica and /or any other of the rumored teams being thrilled with watching practice hockey.




And the guy who views the ECHL as the worst thing to happen to humanity since roundabouts finally makes his case.

Though I do agree on the fact that several AHL markets would rather go dark than downgrade, but while we discuss the movements out west, several of those abandoned towns and cities will work on getting AHL teams from other markets like Milwaukee, OKC, and Rockford that don't have a stronghold in those places. We can see potentially up to 10 teams move next year in the AHL.


----------



## HawksIsles

Hoodaha said:


> As for Sacramento, I've always thought it would be a great market for hockey, but it never gets off the ground. I believe that I've heard that the NBA team has first right of refusal, so if they don't want another tenant in their building, they can reject it (I may be mixing this up with Oakland). I've also heard that there are difficulties with producing ice. I have trouble believing that an NBA arena wouldn't be equipped for ice, so that may be an issue for alternate buildings. To tell you the truth, I don't know why Sacramento never happens, but there have been hurdles there for as long as I can remember.



The old Arco Arena (whatever it's called these days) was designed for basketball. 
To have hockey there, end seats have to be removed.

Their new arena will be designed with ice rink in mind.


----------



## Disengage

HawksIsles said:


> The old Arco Arena (whatever it's called these days) was designed for basketball.
> To have hockey there, end seats have to be removed.
> 
> Their new arena will be designed with ice rink in mind.




Two things. Removing the end seats isn't a big deal (see: San Antonio, Charlotte, and Brooklyn) and the Arco Arena has already hosted hockey (Sabres vs. Penguins 93-94 regular season).


----------



## HawksIsles

Disengage said:


> Two things. Removing the end seats isn't a big deal (see: San Antonio, Charlotte, and Brooklyn) and the Arco Arena has already hosted hockey (Sabres vs. Penguins 93-94 regular season).




20 years ago?!


----------



## Off da post and in

JDogindy said:


> And the guy who views the ECHL as the worst thing to happen to humanity since roundabouts finally makes his case.
> 
> Though I do agree on the fact that several AHL markets would rather go dark than downgrade, but while we discuss the movements out west, several of those abandoned towns and cities will work on getting AHL teams from other markets like Milwaukee, OKC, and *Rockford* that don't have a stronghold in those places. We can see potentially up to 10 teams move next year in the AHL.




The Chicago Blackhawks will buy Rockford before they'd let them move East. The proximity of Rockford, a few hours drive from Chicago and O'Hare Airport, is the ideal setup for the Hawks to expedite their emergency call ups to their NHL games when needed.


----------



## hkymnky

JDogindy said:


> And the guy who views the ECHL as the worst thing to happen to humanity since roundabouts finally makes his case.
> 
> Though I do agree on the fact that several AHL markets would rather go dark than downgrade, but while we discuss the movements out west, several of those abandoned towns and cities will work on getting AHL teams from other markets like Milwaukee, OKC, and Rockford that don't have a stronghold in those places. We can see potentially up to 10 teams move next year in the AHL.




I really don't see the teams you listed moving east. Of those three I only see OKC being a candidate to move at all. Milwaukee has local ownership (including the owner of the Brewers), and the Ice Hogs (last I checked) were owned by the city of Rockford. However, everything has its price, so I suppose its possible that someone could make an offer that Milwaukee and/or Rockford couldn't refuse...but I think there are other franchises that could be obtained much more cheaply.

I suspect that the vacuum left by moving AHL teams in the east will be filled by other eastern AHL teams. Smaller markets and underperforming franchises will get moved around so that markets like Manchester aren't lost completely. Personally I could see Hartford moving to Manchester. There was some speculation last silly season that they might move to Glens Falls. Obviously that didn't happen, but I wonder if Manchester might be more appealing.


----------



## GareFan18

With an ECHL merger, A team in Kansas City could play teams in Indianapolis, Ft. Wayne, K-Zoo and Cincinnati.

Can you say IHL in 1995?


----------



## Royalsflagrunner77

JDogindy said:


> And the guy who views the ECHL as the worst thing to happen to humanity since roundabouts finally makes his case.
> 
> Though I do agree on the fact that several AHL markets would rather go dark than downgrade, but while we discuss the movements out west, several of those abandoned towns and cities will work on getting AHL teams from other markets like Milwaukee, OKC, and Rockford that don't have a stronghold in those places. We can see potentially up to 10 teams move next year in the AHL.




one thing we have to keep in the back of our minds is that hockey fans love their hockey i can see some real hockey markets in the ahl that lose there teams will probably downgrade to the E


----------



## Hoodaha

Royalsflagrunner77 said:


> one thing we have to keep in the back of our minds is that hockey fans love their hockey i can see some real hockey markets in the ahl that lose there teams will probably downgrade to the E




Yeah, it's pretty easy to say I'd rather have no hockey than downgrade, but once your team is gone, I doubt you'll feel the same way. ECHL hockey is fun to watch, if you give it a chance. Is it the AHL? No, it isn't. Is it hockey and a good time, yeah.


----------



## hkymnky

Hoodaha said:


> Yeah, it's pretty easy to say I'd rather have no hockey than downgrade, but once your team is gone, I doubt you'll feel the same way. ECHL hockey is fun to watch, if you give it a chance. Is it the AHL? No, it isn't. Is it hockey and a good time, yeah.




I think the acceptance of former AHL markets will also depend on how many other former AHL cities also join. A combined division of Manchester, Worcester, Springfield, Glens Falls and Utica would do much better than Manchester and Worcester competing in the same division with Elmira and Reading.


----------



## wildcat48

*AHL Officials: No franchises have been sold or transferred * READ MORE>>>

(Article applies in terms of markets in the AHL next season)


----------



## Gearhead82

GareFan18 said:


> With an ECHL merger, A team in Kansas City could play teams in Indianapolis, Ft. Wayne, K-Zoo and Cincinnati.
> 
> Can you say IHL in 1995?




Remember those days fondly.


----------



## JDogindy

Hoodaha said:


> Yeah, it's pretty easy to say I'd rather have no hockey than downgrade, but once your team is gone, I doubt you'll feel the same way. ECHL hockey is fun to watch, if you give it a chance. Is it the AHL? No, it isn't. Is it hockey and a good time, yeah.




Oh, that's true. I mean, even if they feel it's a downgrade, I'd rather still see some hockey in my area than the prospect of no hockey at all. 

I only mentioned those markets because I didn't do my research. I'm not a thorough follower of the news and still wish that the Minor League Death Report from the old CHL Underground still existed.


----------



## hkymnky

JDogindy said:


> Oh, that's true. I mean, even if they feel it's a downgrade, I'd rather still see some hockey in my area than the prospect of no hockey at all.
> 
> I only mentioned those markets because I didn't do my research. I'm not a thorough follower of the news and still wish that the Minor League Death Report from the old CHL Underground still existed.




Seconded. Bring back the Minor League Hockey Death Report.


----------



## go comets

hkymnky said:


> I really don't see the teams you listed moving east. Of those three I only see OKC being a candidate to move at all. Milwaukee has local ownership (including the owner of the Brewers), and the Ice Hogs (last I checked) were owned by the city of Rockford. However, everything has its price, so I suppose its possible that someone could make an offer that Milwaukee and/or Rockford couldn't refuse...but I think there are other franchises that could be obtained much more cheaply.
> 
> I suspect that the vacuum left by moving AHL teams in the east will be filled by other eastern AHL teams. Smaller markets and underperforming franchises will get moved around so that markets like Manchester aren't lost completely. Personally I could see Hartford moving to Manchester. There was some speculation last silly season that they might move to Glens Falls. Obviously that didn't happen, but I wonder if Manchester might be more appealing.



The rangers will want their ahl team in new York state where they can draw fans. Bingo,Albany,Utica,Syracuse is where they will end up....


----------



## go comets

Royalsflagrunner77 said:


> one thing we have to keep in the back of our minds is that hockey fans love their hockey i can see some real hockey markets in the ahl that lose there teams will probably downgrade to the E




I could see Utica ,glens falls trying to get a OHL team.


----------



## hkymnky

I seem to recall there being rumblings about Hartford to Binghamton last summer, but the only way I could see that happening is if the local Binghamton ownership sold their franchise. If the rumors are true there's no shortage of buyers out there...so who knows?

Alternatively, I could also see New Jersey selling their AHL team (their new ownership is dealing with a lot of debt from the previous owner and could likely use the money) which would leave Albany available for the Rangers. However, I believe the Rangers want their AHL arena managed by MSG, and I'm pretty sure Albany has a contract with another company.


----------



## Clinton Comets EHL

go comets said:


> I could see Utica ,glens falls trying to get a OHL team.




I'd rather watch ice melt than have the ECHL. Really, OHL in Glens Falls? Never fly.


----------



## Royalsflagrunner77

6768clintoncomets575 said:


> I'd rather watch ice melt than have the ECHL. Really, OHL in Glens Falls? Never fly.



You say that now until you have no hockey at all.


----------



## HansH

hkymnky said:


> Seconded. Bring back the Minor League Hockey Death Report.




Thanks, but I'm too old to spend the time searching online newspaper sites and trolling message boards -- someone else could pick up the baton at any time... really. 

(I appreciate the positive memories, though!)


----------



## Sidly

6768clintoncomets575 said:


> I'd rather watch ice melt than have the ECHL. Really, OHL in Glens Falls? Never fly.




Why would you not want to have an ECHL team in town?


----------



## JDogindy

Sidly said:


> Why would you not want to have an ECHL team in town?




It's a pointless argument. He'll always refer to the ECHL as a crappy league that can do no right.

Now, assuming this is the last year of the CHL, I can imagine between 3-6 teams joining with discounted fees. No prizes for guessing which team the ECHL should avoid, and I'll give you a hint: they already had a bad experience north of the border.


----------



## Hoodaha

Sidly said:


> Why would you not want to have an ECHL team in town?




Because the ECHL is a terrible, very bad, no good, sucky, crappy, awful league according to him. I can certainly appreciate that a step down might not make fans happy, but hockey is better than no hockey. I say that as someone who has watched NAHL in the past, just to get by.


----------



## Sidly

Hoodaha said:


> Because the ECHL is a terrible, very bad, no good, sucky, crappy, awful league according to him. I can certainly appreciate that a step down might not make fans happy, but hockey is better than no hockey. I say that as someone who has watched NAHL in the past, just to get by.




I do not really understand where he is coming from. I'm just spoiled. I have Reading 45 minutes away, Hershey around an hour and a half, and Philadelphia also 45 minutes away. I enjoy all hockey even the lowest tiers. Heck if you don't want a ECHL team in your town let them come to little ole Indiana, Pa.


----------



## Clinton Comets EHL

Hoodaha said:


> Because the ECHL is a terrible, very bad, no good, sucky, crappy, awful league according to him. I can certainly appreciate that a step down might not make fans happy, but hockey is better than no hockey. I say that as someone who has watched NAHL in the past, just to get by.




Went 13 years with professional hockey here. The E would never fly here, I'm not alone thinking this. I have watched the ECHL in person, D# hockey is more entertaining. Not better players but more entertaining. Ask the people in Fort Wayne how they like it. Many do, a bunch don't. The ECHL is not the entertainment it was 10 years ago. Go watch it.


----------



## Clinton Comets EHL

Royalsflagrunner77 said:


> You say that now until you have no hockey at all.




No, I say that because I've seen the ECHL. Not ENTERTAINING at all. Never said it was bad, just not entertaining.

Would take the UHL back anytime.


----------



## Paul Bunyan

I like the ECHL, but I'll watch hockey at any level. It's not what it was 10 years ago because of the salary cap and most of these players don't want to play in a league if they have no shot at making the AHL or NHL anymore. 

I find most older fans are more pissed about the state of the ECHL than anyone else, but I think hockey as a whole has moved to a less hardcore, more sitting on your hands "event sport" type deal. 

It's really gone down at all levels in atmosphere other than US college hockey and that is what effects the game most in my opinion.


----------



## Neill99

*ECHL/CHL Merger*

If the merger between the ECHL and the CHL is a done deal its not on the ECHL website or the CHL web site does anyone what's happening.


----------



## mfrerkes

There wouldn't be any announcement on either league's website until an official joint declaration is made. That declaration (*if* it even happens) has yet to transpire.

Something is very likely going on, but even the most basic details are scarce right now. There's way too much smoke for this not to be a fire of some kind. I'll bet the CHL was forced into survival mode and is probably hammering out a tricky arrangement with the ECHL. Obviously, the timing here is lousy. With hardly one month before the regular season starts, this type of merger/alliance is going to be fraught with danger.

Some *meaningful* news on what (if anything) is happening should arrive by the middle of next week.


----------



## PRMan

Hoodaha said:


> The OKC franchise would probably be moved to Bakersfield. Bakersfield is owned by the Oilers and draws many more fans per game.
> 
> Bakersfield: 4,859 fans/game
> OKC: 3,348 fans/game
> 
> With Ontario joining the AHL, Bakersfield is easy for travel.
> 
> Bakersfield is a reasonably quick drive to LAX, where there are direct flights to Edmonton.
> 
> Presumably, San Jose and Anaheim get teams in California too (Stockton/San Diego/Fresno?), setting up a pretty good, easy base of travel for the AHL west...




Why wouldn't they just fly Bakersfield - San Fran - Edmonton?


----------



## Hoodaha

PRMan said:


> Why wouldn't they just fly Bakersfield - San Fran - Edmonton?




Usually via LA.


----------



## mk80

ECHL concluded the Board of Governors meetings in St. Louis. Nothing mentioned about any mergers here is the press release on what came out of the meetings on the ECHL website

http://www.echl.com/echl-concludes-board-of-governors-pre-season-meeting-p193729


----------



## hoodle

So they buried the merger details...and announced the fluff ..how long are they going to, or can, wait until they lose this season and the Central League plays a final season? I would think Oct 1st might be the cutoff date. Just my thought


----------



## mk80

Although if they were going to announce anything from the meeting if a merger/ absorption took place you would think they would announce it as well along with the rule changes. 

I don't doubt that the CHL and ECHL met at those meetings and discussed a merger. But with that announcement by the ECHL I'm starting to think they maybe both leagues met to put the wheels into motion for a merger for the 2015-16 season.


----------



## Francis10

mk80 said:


> Although if they were going to announce anything from the meeting if a merger/ absorption took place you would think they would announce it as well along with the rule changes.
> 
> I don't doubt that the CHL and ECHL met at those meetings and discussed a merger. But with that announcement by the ECHL I'm starting to think they maybe both leagues met to put the wheels into motion for a merger for the 2015-16 season.




I think you are right. Hammer out the details during each leagues season this year, then have all summer 2015 to plan for the influx of 6 or 7 teams to the ECHL and schedule everything accordingly.


----------



## No Fun Shogun

Yeah, had a hard time imagining that the merger was going to take place in time for this upcoming season, so no real rush on that front for next year. Lots of time to iron out all the details, which teams get in, and what the alignment will be.


----------



## jabberoski

As has been stated numerous times on these boards, there will not be a merger. If any/all CHL teams want to join the ECHL, they will do as expansion teams, just like the WCHL teams did in 2003, and they will do so under ECHL rules.


----------



## JDogindy

That's fine and dandy, but what happens if the CHL folds midseason?


----------



## Jackets Woodchuck

JDogindy said:


> That's fine and dandy, but what happens if the CHL folds midseason?




Believe me, if the CHL starts the folding process midseason, it'll take them until the end of the season to fold. Their corporate structure, to put it kindly, is a mess.


----------



## mk80

I don't see the CHL folding mid season it is after all owned by the franchises and at this point all of the teams are pretty well off as far as ownership is concerned, even Brampton's owner is pretty big. What we will probably see is the division of Allen, Tulsa, and Wichita into 3 separate owners either the individual Stevens brothers or to other groups. But the franchises will make through this season.


----------



## wildcat48

_Jonathan Molina @Pacific4_Jon_


> Sources tell me that this ECHL/CHL deal is finally done. Announcement this week.




https://twitter.com/Pacific4_Jon/status/514577857612242944


----------



## No Fun Shogun

Done?

Dun dun dun...


----------



## mk80

Will be interesting when it is announced, but its Wednesday and no announcements are made yet.


----------



## Sports Enthusiast

Most of the franchises in the CHL are on shaky ground. Pick the couple worthy teams. Not all.


----------



## mk80

Well at this point all the teams are the ones (at least from an external perspective) are the ones on more solid ground Missouri, Allen, Witchita, Rapid City, Tulsa. Only thing was those is that most likely we would see the division of Allen, Witchita, Tulsa divided up between the 3 Stephens brothers or the brothers and other groups. Quad City seems to be under an ownership group now that seems willing to stay put in the league, otherwise they would probably have gone out sooner this summer or with Denver and Arizona. And Brampton despite their location is actually backed by deep pocketed owner with a lot of hockey experience, plus an ECHL move could bring the Leafs on board in Brampton. So most likely we should expect to see all CHL franchises be admitted this season.


----------



## PCSPounder

The imminent demise, or even the slower-death demise, of a league? Sounds like Friday afternoon release material to me.

Not that it's guaranteed, naturally.


----------



## Maddog

wildcat48 said:


> _Jonathan Molina @Pacific4_Jon_
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/Pacific4_Jon/status/514577857612242944




Last day of the work week so will we hear something Friday? A few people are putting their reputations on the lines for this absorption.


----------



## Neill99

*ECHL/CHL Merger*

Is the ECHL/CHL merger really done nothing been said yet.I hope Brampton gets in.


----------



## CrazyEddie20

If this were going to happen for the upcoming season, it would have been announced by now. The ECHL under Brian McKenna doesn't make hasty, ill-advised business moves, and this would certainly be one.


----------



## wildcat48

_Jonathan Molina
‏@Pacific4_Jon _ 


> #ECHL/#CHL merge will decrease max salary for a rookie. Existing rookie contracts to be re-signed.




https://twitter.com/Pacific4_Jon/status/514758060032933888


----------



## Cyclones Rock

CrazyEddie20 said:


> *If this were going to happen for the upcoming season, it would have been announced by now*. The ECHL under Brian McKenna doesn't make hasty, ill-advised business moves, and this would certainly be one.




Agreed.

The ECHL's best strategy is to let the collapse on the CHL take its natural course and pick up the strongest remaining pieces for the 2015-16 season.

But, I have heard rumors that groups from Casper WY, Louisville KY, Flint MI, and Moose Jaw SK are interested in joining the CHL in 2015-16. Along with a retirement community from an undisclosed Florida location


----------



## speedrissr

If it happens this season, the CHL teams won't pay much to join the ECHL, as a group they have much more value sticking together, essentially holding the Western ECHL teams hostage, since the ECHL can't keep the good Western ECHL teams in the league if they lose all the California teams to the AHL.

Will the combined league be the ECHL, yes, clearly due to the ECHL PHPA, since the CHL PHPA still hasn't been agreed to, a quick look to the CHL PHPA league link still doesn't show an signed agreement. But the ECHL will have added three teams with attendance around 5,000 a night (Mizzou, Wichita, and Tulsa, with Rapid City and Allen well above 4,000). Next season, without Ontario, Bakersfield,and Stockton, all possibly going to the AHL, the Western ECHL teams will spend too much time playing three games in three nights in Alaska, since no other ECHL teams are willing to go there. A four team Western ECHL Division, without the California teams, isn't viable, especially with Alaksa being one of them.

Here's a map, do the math. Alaska's a much bigger problem without the California teams than Brampton is in the CHL and that's not going to change, ever.

https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=zOZ01sv2DGic.kVqCa65_4w2c&authuser=0&hl=en

Al?

RLR


----------



## Maddog

speedrissr said:


> If it happens this season, the CHL teams won't pay much to join the ECHL, as a group they have much more value sticking together, essentially holding the Western ECHL teams hostage, since the ECHL can't keep the good Western ECHL teams in the league if they lose all the California teams to the AHL.
> 
> Will the combined league be the ECHL, yes, clearly due to the ECHL PHPA, since the CHL PHPA still hasn't been agreed to, a quick look to the CHL PHPA league link still doesn't show an signed agreement. But the ECHL will have added three teams with attendance around 5,000 a night (Mizzou, Wichita, and Tulsa, with Rapid City and Allen well above 4,000). Next season, without Ontario, Bakersfield,and Stockton, all possibly going to the AHL, the Western ECHL teams will spend too much time playing three games in three nights in Alaska, since no other ECHL teams are willing to go there. A four team Western ECHL Division, without the California teams, isn't viable, especially with Alaksa being one of them.
> 
> Here's a map, do the math. Alaska's a much bigger problem without the California teams than Brampton is in the CHL and that's not going to change, ever.
> 
> https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=zOZ01sv2DGic.kVqCa65_4w2c&authuser=0&hl=en
> 
> Al?
> 
> RLR




I'm not sure most of the current western ECHL teams like to travel up to Anchorage, not only because of the travel but because they are a beast of a team. Even without the rumored departures of the California teams the ECHL needed to beef up that division. The CHL teams would be a welcome to the ECHL regardless. This is the one area where the ECHL needs the CHL more than the CHL needs the ECHL. The one and only area but the question remains can the CHL teams accept traveling up to Alaska for away games thus paying more money than having some teams travel to Brampton?


----------



## Clinton Comets EHL

CrazyEddie20 said:


> If this were going to happen for the upcoming season, it would have been announced by now. The ECHL under Brian McKenna doesn't make hasty, ill-advised business moves, and this would certainly be one.




What????????? Since when?


----------



## aparch

Do the Aces subsidize a part of the travel costs for teams coming up to play them? 

I know the University of Alaska Fairbanks and University of Alaska Anchorage pay a certain amount for every conference member of their hockey conference to travel up to play them. And Abbotsford, BC in the AHL had a similar setup where they helped offset part of the cost of travel to all AHL teams that flew to them.


----------



## IrascibleOne

I honestly think the travel to Alaska gets overblown. It's the difference between a few more hours in the air to fly to AK vs. a long bus ride somewhere else. Most guys I know would rather fly. I've never talked to anyone playing on the West coast who has complained about flying to Alaska... not one.


----------



## StingraysFan

https://twitter.com/artful_puck/status/516395607637114881

More sources saying CHL teams to ECHL is a done deal.

Announcement tomorrow???


----------



## Gibbie42

The players don't mind flying, it's the owners having to pay for it that are hurt. Cincy paid a fortune to get in and out of Alaska at playoffs. I want to say I was told like 50 grand (that could have been the total for both teams). Regular season travel is probably a little easier to manage because you can have some advance booking on the flights, but for playoffs the costs were huge. And the players wound up spread over 4 different flights so they could all get there.


----------



## Off da post and in

wildcat48 said:


> _Jonathan Molina @Pacific4_Jon_
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/Pacific4_Jon/status/514577857612242944




Why would Mr. Molina risk possibly creating a miniscule reliability lapse for himself with the above tweet?

He still is in the right church ( a merger), but he's definitely in the wrong pew (that is a done deal as of last week).


----------



## Neill99

*ECHL/CHL Merger*

I just spoke to someone from ECHL on the phone and the person had told me that.That was news to him and nothings done.


----------



## IrascibleOne

Gibbie42 said:


> The players don't mind flying, it's the owners having to pay for it that are hurt. Cincy paid a fortune to get in and out of Alaska at playoffs. I want to say I was told like 50 grand (that could have been the total for both teams). Regular season travel is probably a little easier to manage because you can have some advance booking on the flights, but for playoffs the costs were huge. And the players wound up spread over 4 different flights so they could all get there.




Such is life in minor hockey. I guess they could have just forfeited the series if the travel costs weren't worth it to them. Something tells me they wouldn't be complaining if they had won the championship.



They're going to pay short-notice prices on airline tickets during the playoffs no matter where they're headed. Yeah, I'm sure they were a bit higher to Alaska than... oh, I don't know... let's say, Bakersfield. A short-notice ticket is pricey no matter the destination, though.


----------



## mk80

No announcement yet, with ECHL camps opening soon there would be announcement if there was a deal very soon!


----------



## mfrerkes

mk80 said:


> No announcement yet, with ECHL camps opening soon there would be announcement if there was a deal very soon!




Sounds like there might be some BIG obstacles in the negotiations. Anyone want to bet how difficult the Stevens' Brothers are making this? They opposed the original merger vote, and I'm sure their 43% stake in the CHL is giving them more motivation to sink this deal.

I think they could end up sinking themselves if they don't finally accept reality. The CHL in its present form will not last long.


----------



## hoodle

I imagine they are asking for an excessive amount of money to sell off two of the three teams, and if they don't get it, then they will keep this from happening. They are playing an expensive game of chicken, and realistically they need the ECHL more so than the ECHL needs them. They can wait the Stevens brothers out and leave them with nothing...


----------



## mk80

If indeed they are holding this deal hostage, then in my opinion they don't know or at least refuse to do what's best for their teams (or at least Witchita). Like someone said they need the ECHL more than the ECHL needs them


----------



## JDogindy

Look... either let it happen, or don't.

I'm getting tired of waiting.


----------



## speedrissr

*The "Merger" / Absorption is getting close*

From Darryl Wolski's twitter:

"ECHL and Central Hockey League merger is finalized and all coaches to meet in Chicago #echl #chl"

Much like the WCHL / ECHL "merger", I would expect the CHL teams to join the ECHL. From the ECHL website:

"The East Coast Hockey League and West Coast Hockey League did not merge. The WCHL ceased operations after completing its season in 2002-03. The teams from the defunct WCHL, along with Las Vegas, joined as expansion teams for the ECHLâ€™s 16th season in 2003-04. "

Of course if the expansion fee is only $50K or less, who really won the battle.

Al?

RLR


----------



## Neill99

*Merger*

If the merger is done will there a new schedule?.


----------



## Sidly

It probably would just be a play out of the last season of the CHL then teams will be let go or asked to join the ECHL. It is sad in a way seeing the CHL go down after a long history. But oh well hopefully we will have better hockey in the future.


----------



## Hoodaha

Neill99 said:


> If the merger is done will there a new schedule?.




I suspect that the CHL teams will keep their CHL schedule and play only in their division, like the WCHL teams do.


----------



## HansH

The WCHL absorption was announced prior to the beginning of the WCHL's final season -- they played out one final independent season knowing it was the last, then the teams joined the ECHL for the next season.

I would be surprised if something other than that structure played out in this case, assuming there's fire behind all this smoke.

But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.


----------



## mk80

With training camps being 2 or 3 days away and the ECHL anouncing submitted training camp rosters. I'm thinking that we will see an anouncement for 2015-16 at this point. Honestly I think everyone is best served holding out another season in seperate leagues but working together to get out the fine details. There was too much to do and so little time to do it, so it would really surprise me if anything is anounced this weekend with camps starting to open on Monday and Tuesday. 

The CHL should have been discussing a merger or agreement or whatever in May with the ECHL if they were wanting in for this season. I believe there is some sort of agreement in place for the CHL franchises to join the ECHL however I think at this point it is for 15-16.


----------



## Off da post and in

mk80 said:


> With training camps being 2 or 3 days away and the ECHL anouncing submitted training camp rosters. I'm thinking that we will see an anouncement for 2015-16 at this point. Honestly I think everyone is best served holding out another season in seperate leagues but working together to get out the fine details. There was too much to do and so little time to do it, so it would really surprise me if anything is anounced this weekend with camps starting to open on Monday and Tuesday.




I've heard the merger is a go for tomorrow.


----------



## Cornwall OHL

Off da post and in said:


> I've heard the merger is a go for tomorrow.




Do you have a source for this?


----------



## Off da post and in

Cornwall OHL said:


> Do you have a source for this?




 notification sent to the players.


----------



## StingraysFan

*Source: Sports Illustrated*

_Several West Coast-based NHL teams, including the Los Angeles Kings, Anaheim Ducks and San Jose Sharks have expressed concerns with the expense, time and travel barriers that come with having AHL teams based on the East Coast. It's believed that there have been discussions that would see some teams from the current ECHL, including California's Ontario, Bakersfield and Stockton franchises, jump up a level to the AHL with current affiliates in *Manchester, N.H., Norfolk, Va., and Worcester, Mass. possibly dropping to the ECHL.*_

CHL teams join the ECHL this season, add 6 games to get them to 72 but will be very little cross-over until the playoffs. in 2014

Ontario, Bakersfield, and Stockton to the AHL in 2015
Norfolk, Worcester, and Manchester to the ECHL in 2015

http://www.si.com/nhl/2014/10/06/source-echl-chl-merger-be-confirmed-next-week

NHL Brass want a 30-30-30 set-up and will use for reduced expenses and increased promotion and sales between NHL/AHL/ECHL.


----------



## mk80

I would've expected the CHL franchises starting training camp today then as most of the ECHL did. Unless they are going to have the leagues use their separate schedules for this season.


----------



## StingraysFan

Details were that they would use their separate schedules for now and CHL would be their own "conference" within the ECHL but add 6 games against themselves to get to 72. The CHL "conference" will earn a bid to the ECHL playoffs. Starting next season the CHL teams will be fully integrated within the ECHL and the E will have new divisions as the E will lose 3 or 4 teams to the AHL and gain 3 eastern AHL teams. Good times...


----------



## Clinton Comets EHL

StingraysFan said:


> *Source: Sports Illustrated*
> 
> _Several West Coast-based NHL teams, including the Los Angeles Kings, Anaheim Ducks and San Jose Sharks have expressed concerns with the expense, time and travel barriers that come with having AHL teams based on the East Coast. It's believed that there have been discussions that would see some teams from the current ECHL, including California's Ontario, Bakersfield and Stockton franchises, jump up a level to the AHL with current affiliates in *Manchester, N.H., Norfolk, Va., and Worcester, Mass. possibly dropping to the ECHL.*_
> 
> CHL teams join the ECHL this season, add 6 games to get them to 72 but will be very little cross-over until the playoffs. in 2014
> 
> Ontario, Bakersfield, and Stockton to the AHL in 2015
> Norfolk, Worcester, and Manchester to the ECHL in 2015
> 
> http://www.si.com/nhl/2014/10/06/source-echl-chl-merger-be-confirmed-next-week
> 
> NHL Brass want a 30-30-30 set-up and will use for reduced expenses and increased promotion and sales between NHL/AHL/ECHL.




Sports Illustrated/ Really?

Teams just don't drop. Manchester will never go to the ECHL, neither will Worcester.


----------



## speedrissr

http://www.bramptonbeast.com/tickets/season/

Here comes Brampton, 72 game schedule.

Al?

RLR


----------



## speedrissr

Read the fine print (33 regular season, 3 playoff). Someone in the Silly Season FB (usually a good source of info) group posted this as proof of the merger. Tried to correct him but to no avail. Going to be an interesting day.

Al?

RLR


----------



## Hoodaha

6768clintoncomets575 said:


> Sports Illustrated/ Really?
> 
> Teams just don't drop. Manchester will never go to the ECHL, neither will Worcester.




You keep saying that, but Manchester probably won't have the Kings AHL team come next year. I don't see a good market like Manchester going without a team, so unless another AHL team moves there, the ECHL may be the only option.


----------



## Stitch11

Meeting today will determine if the CHL teams have meet the required conditions for becoming members of the ECHL. This is not a merger!!!


----------



## JackalsKnuckles

6768clintoncomets575 said:


> Sports Illustrated/ Really?
> 
> Teams just don't drop. Manchester will never go to the ECHL, neither will Worcester.




Agreed. No way the ECHL flies in New England or any other market that has other hockey options. No chance at all.


----------



## mk80

Brampton isn't the only team to offer season tickets for 36 games (3 playoff games included. It isn't a sign of the ECHL just yet.


----------



## Sidly

Royals do just fine. Same with Hershey. I have met people who have driven 5 hours from DC to see the Bears instead. The Phantoms will also have good attendance.


----------



## Neill99

*ECHL/CHL Merger*

Is there isn't there any merger I would have like to see Toledo @ Brampton and/or Orlando @Brampton


----------



## mk80

If there is a merger most likely the CHL teams will play their own schedule for the regular season and only cross over for the playoffs. Then next year they'll be fully integrated.


----------



## speedrissr

The Wichita Eagle is reporting its done.

http://www.kansas.com/sports/other-sports/wichita-thunder/article2558798.html

Al?

RLR


----------



## MiamiHockey

JackalsKnuckles said:


> Agreed. No way the ECHL flies in New England or any other market that has other hockey options. No chance at all.




I'm sure fans in Winnipeg and Quebec said the same thing before their NHL teams left. Then, miraculously, an AHL team developed a huge fan base in Winnipeg, and a QMJHL team developed a huge fan base in Quebec.


----------



## JackalsKnuckles

MiamiHockey said:


> I'm sure fans in Winnipeg and Quebec said the same thing before their NHL teams left. Then, miraculously, an AHL team developed a huge fan base in Winnipeg, and a QMJHL team developed a huge fan base in Quebec.




I agree with you, however the Q and the AHL are a far cry from the ECHL as far as entertainment value goes. Both leagues are physical and entertaining. 

New England is full of college hockey and I have a hard time believing folks will buy tickets for the ECHL when there are other options. Sadly the more the ECHL tries to become like the NHL the worse the product gets. CHL fans will find this out. Too much roster turnover, very few vets who build a core of a team, and hockey that is so lacking in physical play that it is hard to overcome the boredom. Ask fans in Kalamazoo, Elmira, or Fort Wayne if they like the product better now than before they jumped to the ECHL.


----------



## No Fun Shogun

No longer a mere rumor, so continue over here:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1746791


----------

