Carolina to Affiliate with Chicago Wolves and not Charlotte Checkers

[CHRDANHUTCH]

During the IHL era, the Wolves did just fine as an indie. The AHL should take that into consideration. Dropping down to the FHL will certainly alienate their fanbase as well.

what era was that, Z..... THAT rule died out in 1991-92, otherwise, Binghamton likely doesn't stay in the league as long as it did before they dropped to the UHL.....

 

[Tommy Hawk]

the change from Carolina ownership might have played a role in that, then there's the Wolves insistence that they be held to a higher standard than the rest of the league..... as to why St. Louis was 'done' AFTER Vegas bought San Antonio.....then there's the rule that you are required to be affiliated to be an active franchise, something they've known in Rosemont since their addition in 2001.

First, there is no rule. Never has been. Second, you better learn where the f the Wolves are located. They are the Chicago Wolves but you seem to forget that or you are just trolling. Either way, ongoing jokes are funny, this is not.

Well...Well...Well...GEE..looks like there's going to be a HUGE meal of crow eaten by certain people on this board...You know who you are don't you...I believe you go by the handle that is also what you call a North Carolina University athlete.....MONTHS ago I was told by some that I didn't know what I was talking about and that there was NO WAY Carolina would leave Charlotte and destroy the footprint that they had created...etc...etc blah...blah...blah The line to apologize forms to the left...have some guts and balls and come on here and tell me you are sorry and that yes I did know what I was talking about.

How's that line going?

How about that fans of teams that leaves them as an affiliate are more than happy to do so because they value winning and playing 27 y/o career AHLers over 20 y/o prospects. Their ownership prioritizes short-term success over player development. The AHL is about prospect development, not having the young guys minutes taken away so a career journyman can light up inexperienced goaltenders.

Sorry, but I'm not looking forward to that.

So, tell me, what the heck are you basing these "minutes" comments upon? Are you tracking them because the league doesn't, for anybody. So unless someone out there starts posting official TOI stats for the AHL, all the comments about who plays how much each year is total BS and complete conjecture on the part of the person making the baseless accusation.

Florida wanted an affiliate in its own timezone, which San Antonio was not, nor is Rosemont, Centrum...that's why Colorado got the affiliation until they bought the Eagles up a league, that's where the Blues took that affiliation over once Vegas took control

Again, not funny, just old.

And so far in the AHL, the Wolves are doing just fine as an independently owned and operated team. They're developing NHL prospects and whoever is affiliated with them won't be spending a ton of money. The AHL is letting them be. They can't be forced to sell.

You must really have an imagination to put the Chicago Wolves and the FHL in the same thought. That is the nicest way I can put that.

They could be forced to sell like Norfolk was forced, the only difference is Levin wouldn't take that lying down and the lawsuits for the old Iowa franchise would look like small claims court activity compared to the firestorm that Levin's lawyer would rain down on the AHL.

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

They could be forced to sell like Norfolk was forced, the only difference is Levin wouldn't take that lying down and the lawsuits for the old Iowa franchise would look like small claims court activity compared to the firestorm that Levin's lawyer would rain down on the AHL.

Aren't those two entirely different scenarios?

There was a very realistic chance that Norfolk could have been left without a NHL affiliate considering how common it was to share AHL affiliates then and the league could easily have expanded.

Now, that leverage of "we'll just go and share with another team" is no longer there because no NHL team in their right mind would let another NHL team in on their farm. With all the NHL-led emphasis on player development in the minors, no NHL team would let another reduce valuable prospect development through a shared affiliation. The leverage of "we'll just expand and leave you" is also no longer valid since they are now at the 1-1 model with the NHL no longer expanding, meaning the AHL is no longer expanding. So where is this "they could be forced to sell like Norfolk" coming from?

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Iowa was a leveraged franchise, remember.... Not allowed in any professional league..... nevermind the AHL .

Anaheim had to interest a 3rd team (happened to be Edmonton, who had acquired Bakersfield as an interest previously) because they weren't in the owner/operation business as they have been since adding San Diego...

 

[Centrum Hockey]

Aren't those two entirely different scenarios?

There was a very realistic chance that Norfolk could have been left without a NHL affiliate considering how common it was to share AHL affiliates then and the league could easily have expanded.

Now, that leverage of "we'll just go and share with another team" is no longer there because no NHL team in their right mind would let another NHL team in on their farm. With all the NHL-led emphasis on player development in the minors, no NHL team would let another reduce valuable prospect development through a shared affiliation. The leverage of "we'll just expand and leave you" is also no longer valid since they are now at the 1-1 model with the NHL no longer expanding, meaning the AHL is no longer expanding. So where is this "they could be forced to sell like Norfolk" coming from?

I am pretty sure the rules have changed since the first ice cats season and its against the rules now for a AHL team to sign a full roster of free agents.

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

I am pretty sure the rules have changed since the first ice cats season and its against the rules now for a AHL team to sign a full roster of free agents.

And Chicago Wolves have stayed well within the AHL’s veteran rules. Not sure what that has to do with league leverage to freeze out the Chicago Wolves...

 

[axecrew]

First, there is no rule. Never has been. Second, you better learn where the f the Wolves are located. They are the Chicago Wolves but you seem to forget that or you are just trolling. Either way, ongoing jokes are funny, this is not.



How's that line going?



So, tell me, what the heck are you basing these "minutes" comments upon? Are you tracking them because the league doesn't, for anybody. So unless someone out there starts posting official TOI stats for the AHL, all the comments about who plays how much each year is total BS and complete conjecture on the part of the person making the baseless accusation.



Again, not funny, just old.

That line...funny you should ask...it's empty, just like their comments. Also just like the lack of post from them since....crickets.



They could be forced to sell like Norfolk was forced, the only difference is Levin wouldn't take that lying down and the lawsuits for the old Iowa franchise would look like small claims court activity compared to the firestorm that Levin's lawyer would rain down on the AHL.

 

[axecrew]

And Chicago Wolves have stayed well within the AHL’s veteran rules. Not sure what that has to do with league leverage to freeze out the Chicago Wolves...

It's really quite simple Barc...there are SOME people on this board who have an incessant need to put down,belittle or hate the Wolves. And when they can't find anything or any "REAL" facts to use they move into the arena of conjecture...you know...the whole Rosemont B.S. or my favorite the whole they don't develop anyone...or they only want to win. Funny how when you point these things out to those individuals and cite facts to back up your comments...ie like you just did...those same people will just bullheadly continue on as if you are the idiots...personally I think it's pure jealousy....maybe their favorite team isn't as committed to being good year after year or maaaybeee they don't exist anymore and their only course of action is to talk about the Wolves. Probably also doesn't help that the Wolves came into the league in 01-02 and upsets the good ol boys club by winning a Calder Cup their first year. Also probably does't help that they have been to the finals 4 times in 18 years along with 5 conference finals and won 2 surpassing a large number of teams who have been in the league longer.

 

[Centrum Hockey]

It's really quite simple Barc...there are SOME people on this board who have an incessant need to put down,belittle or hate the Wolves. And when they can't find anything or any "REAL" facts to use they move into the arena of conjecture...you know...the whole Rosemont B.S. or my favorite the whole they don't develop anyone...or they only want to win. Funny how when you point these things out to those individuals and cite facts to back up your comments...ie like you just did...those same people will just bullheadly continue on as if you are the idiots...personally I think it's pure jealousy....maybe their favorite team isn't as committed to being good year after year or maaaybeee they don't exist anymore and their only course of action is to talk about the Wolves. Probably also doesn't help that the Wolves came into the league in 01-02 and upsets the good ol boys club by winning a Calder Cup their first year. Also probably does't help that they have been to the finals 4 times in 18 years along with 5 conference finals and won 2 surpassing a large number of teams who have been in the league longer.

I wasn’t putting down the wolves.It seemed like Barclay was making the argument that there was no rule against a ahl team operating without a NHL affiliate. But I think I Misinterpreted what he was trying to say.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

It's really quite simple Barc...there are SOME people on this board who have an incessant need to put down,belittle or hate the Wolves. And when they can't find anything or any "REAL" facts to use they move into the arena of conjecture...you know...the whole Rosemont B.S. or my favorite the whole they don't develop anyone...or they only want to win. Funny how when you point these things out to those individuals and cite facts to back up your comments...ie like you just did...those same people will just bullheadly continue on as if you are the idiots...personally I think it's pure jealousy....maybe their favorite team isn't as committed to being good year after year or maaaybeee they don't exist anymore and their only course of action is to talk about the Wolves. Probably also doesn't help that the Wolves came into the league in 01-02 and upsets the good ol boys club by winning a Calder Cup their first year. Also probably does't help that they have been to the finals 4 times in 18 years along with 5 conference finals and won 2 surpassing a large number of teams who have been in the league longer.

no, axe:

your franchise is better than every franchise that has ever existed since the league was developed.... BS..... The day will come when you least expect it and there will not be a Don Levin to bail the franchise out....

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

no, axe:

your franchise is better than every franchise that has ever existed since the league was developed.... BS..... The day will come when you least expect it and there will not be a Don Levin to bail the franchise out....

His franchise still exists. They are doing something correctly. Maybe the Portland Pirates should have copied the things the Chicago Wolves have done.

 

[JMCx4]

..there are SOME people on this board who have an incessant need to put down,belittle or hate the Wolves. And when they can't find anything or any "REAL" facts to use they move into the arena of conjecture...

Wait ... Did Allstate Arena get a new corporate sponsor?

 

[axecrew]

no, axe:

your franchise is better than every franchise that has ever existed since the league was developed.... BS..... The day will come when you least expect it and there will not be a Don Levin to bail the franchise out....

It's not my franchise...I don't own it. Much like the AHL isn't yours.

 

[axecrew]

Wait ... Did Allstate Arena get a new corporate sponsor?

Yes...Hutch has agreed to sponsor the naming rights for the arena. It's going to be called a conglomeration of all the companies that own all of the arenas in the east that he loves to trot out.

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

It's not my franchise...I don't own it. Much like the AHL isn't yours.

LOL ownership in this case is an abstract concept. Perhaps he should try with the ECHL Maine Mariners certainly?

 

[axecrew]

I wasn’t putting down the wolves.It seemed like Barclay was making the argument that there was no rule against a ahl team operating without a NHL affiliate. But I think I Misinterpreted what he was trying to say.

Actually this question has been asked and answered by the AHL...and to the dismay of some who still refuse to think there is anyone out there who knows, as much or more than they do about the AHL and it's "rules"...To gain entry into the AHL a franchise must have an NHL affliation. After gaining entry into the league...a team DOES NOT have to maintain an affliation with an NHL club. Having said that it would be financial suicide to go it as an independent, BUT it is able to be LEGALLY done according to the league itself.

 

[axecrew]

LOL ownership in this case is an abstract concept. Perhaps he should try with the ECHL Maine Mariners certainly?

That's not for me to say...but a worthy thought.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Actually this question has been asked and answered by the AHL...and to the dismay of some who still refuse to think there is anyone out there who knows, as much or more than they do about the AHL and it's "rules"...To gain entry into the AHL a franchise must have an NHL affliation. After gaining entry into the league...a team DOES NOT have to maintain an affliation with an NHL club. Having said that it would be financial suicide to go it as an independent, BUT it is able to be LEGALLY done according to the league itself.

it is as illegal as leveraging a franchise, axe....... I cannot wait for Carolina to follow, and start disparaging Chicago, the same MO, as Winnipeg (which this forum and multiple fanbases gave you a pass for).... care to explain why Chicago then alienated Vancouver, then the obvious in St. Louis, all to the degree that the Blues wanted nothing to do with your franchise, which has soured all fanbases toward Chicago and Levin, for that matter, then Vegas pulls out on you...

 

[axecrew]

Obviously a worthy thought that went by the wayside

 

[axecrew]

it is as illegal as leveraging a franchise, axe....... I cannot wait for Carolina to follow, and start disparaging Chicago, the same MO, as Winnipeg (which this forum and multiple fanbases gave you a pass for).... care to explain why Chicago then alienated Vancouver, then the obvious in St. Louis, all to the degree that the Blues wanted nothing to do with your franchise, which has soured all fanbases toward Chicago and Levin, for that matter, then Vegas pulls out on you...

I don't know hutch...again I don't own the Wolves. Maybe you could explain to me and all the world why 31 NHL teams refuse to even consider to place a franchise in that great BOOMING hockey hotbed that is portland maine.

 

[210]

If you want to talk about a team playing without an NHL affiliate, the AHL claims it isn't against their rules or bylaws. But comments attributed to former Norfolk Admirals (AHL) owner Ken Young certainly make it seem that there is a rule against it.

"Young said Friday that his alternative to selling the Norfolk franchise was owning a team with no NHL affiliation and no AHL schedule."

Owner: Sale of Norfolk Admirals nearly a done deal

 

[Tommy Hawk]

If you want to talk about a team playing without an NHL affiliate, the AHL claims it isn't against their rules or bylaws. But comments attributed to former Norfolk Admirals (AHL) owner Ken Young certainly make it seem that there is a rule against it.

"Young said Friday that his alternative to selling the Norfolk franchise was owning a team with no NHL affiliation and no AHL schedule."

Owner: Sale of Norfolk Admirals nearly a done deal

And, as I pointed out up above, i think if the AHL tried to pull this BS, they would be find themselves neck deep in lawsuits and if they went to add another franchise ala Iowa, there would be even more lawsuits.

Line forms on the right......

 

[axecrew]

If you want to talk about a team playing without an NHL affiliate, the AHL claims it isn't against their rules or bylaws. But comments attributed to former Norfolk Admirals (AHL) owner Ken Young certainly make it seem that there is a rule against it.

"Young said Friday that his alternative to selling the Norfolk franchise was owning a team with no NHL affiliation and no AHL schedule."

Owner: Sale of Norfolk Admirals nearly a done deal

There is no rule or bylaw in spite of what some have said. BUT they could make it very difficult to operate by not scheduling games for you etc thus forcing you to sell or do what they want...but there is no rule.

 

[210]

There is no rule or bylaw in spite of what some have said. BUT they could make it very difficult to operate by not scheduling games for you etc thus forcing you to sell or do what they want...but there is no rule.

Just curious, but what excuse could they use to not make a schedule for you? If you own a franchise and are willing to play without an affiliate, what would be their reason to not give you a schedule?

 

[JMCx4]

Just curious, but what excuse could they use to not make a schedule for you? If you own a franchise and are willing to play without an affiliate, what would be their reason to not give you a schedule?

"And the #1 answer from our audience survey is ........... Spite!"