You once again, after years of having the difference explained to you, are confusing the FRANCHISE with the AFFILIATION. In the Oilers situation, the Oilers owned not only the AFFILIATION (the rights to the players) but also the FRANCHISE (the business entity that is "the team"). In this case, Andlauer (and his partners) own the FRANCHISE - they purchased (not leased) the Citadelles franchise. A franchise being leased is VERY rare.
If you have any supporting evidence and links to your claim that the Canadiens OWN the franchise, I would be very interested in you posting it. Otherwise, you've just once again confused people who are interested in the actual situation on the ground.
Hutch, a link? Those two things do NOT belong in the same sentence....
This could open the possibility of Phoenix moving there. I know that the NHL is pushing hard on the Coyotes staying but lets be honest eventually they will move. It just isn't a good NHL market. I dont know if they will move to Hamilton though with the rumors floating around of Seattle wanting an NHL team
This could open the possibility of Phoenix moving there. I know that the NHL is pushing hard on the Coyotes staying but lets be honest eventually they will move. It just isn't a good NHL market. I dont know if they will move to Hamilton though with the rumors floating around of Seattle wanting an NHL team
The issue Hamilton has is the new possible arena in Markham.
You once again, after years of having the difference explained to you, are confusing the FRANCHISE with the AFFILIATION. In the Oilers situation, the Oilers owned not only the AFFILIATION (the rights to the players) but also the FRANCHISE (the business entity that is "the team"). In this case, Andlauer (and his partners) own the FRANCHISE - they purchased (not leased) the Citadelles franchise. A franchise being leased is VERY rare.
If you have any supporting evidence and links to your claim that the Canadiens OWN the franchise, I would be very interested in you posting it. Otherwise, you've just once again confused people who are interested in the actual situation on the ground.
So...... none, of our AHL experts, have an answer?
technically, Andlauer is an employee of the Canadiens by virtue of his ownership stake.... he'd have to sell one or the other, but if there's no franchise to operate in Hamilton, it's a moot point....
Ironic that Quebec City wouldn't or didn't support the franchise in QC, why Laval, and now you know why the Canadiens got out of Quebec.
technically, Andlauer is an employee of the Canadiens by virtue of his ownership stake.... he'd have to sell one or the other, but if there's no franchise to operate in Hamilton, it's a moot point....
Ironic that Quebec City wouldn't or didn't support the franchise in QC, why Laval, and now you know why the Canadiens got out of Quebec.
That's what I assumed too. That's what makes it very interesting when he said there will be an AHL team in Hamilton, whether or not it has the CH on the shoulder might be in question in a few years.
I highly doubt he'll sell his Montreal stake, so perhaps he has a purchaser in mind for his AHL team?
I know I'm a little confused.
As for the Quebec situation. I believe Quebec City is more of a rival to Montreal, where Laval is a sister city. I certainly can see how you could expect Laval to have better attendance than QC.
Last edited by Blue'sClues: 01-28-2012 at 10:29 AM.
That's what I assumed too. That's what makes it very interesting when he said there will be an AHL team in Hamilton, whether or not it has the CH on the shoulder might be in question in a few years.
I highly doubt he'll sell his Montreal stake, so perhaps he has a purchaser in mind for his AHL team?
I know I'm a little confused.
As for the Quebec situation. I believe Quebec City is more of a rival to Montreal, where Laval is a sister city. I certainly can see how you could expect Laval to have better attendance than QC.
the point I'm getting at is this: QC didn't support the AHL and what became the Bulldogs franchise once Edmonton left..... nothing has changed since '02 in QC whether or not QC gets an NHL franchise when/if Phoenix/Glendale gets settled once and for all, and according to the Quebec thread here, the Remparts aren't going anywhere either, so how would that work even with a Laval affiliation... Andlauer or somebody would have to run the successor franchise even if it had the Canadien affiliation.
That's what I assumed too. That's what makes it very interesting when he said there will be an AHL team in Hamilton, whether or not it has the CH on the shoulder might be in question in a few years.
I highly doubt he'll sell his Montreal stake, so perhaps he has a purchaser in mind for his AHL team?
I know I'm a little confused.
As for the Quebec situation. I believe Quebec City is more of a rival to Montreal, where Laval is a sister city. I certainly can see how you could expect Laval to have better attendance than QC.
No, he doesn't need to sell. He can own both, there are no rules in the AHL prohibiting it. 'Hutch is just on some wicked cold medicine....
He admits owning a team of players that are the property of another NHL outfit would be a little awkward since he’s part owner of the Canadiens, but it wouldn’t be impossible or against any league rules.
“If we don’t have a CH on our shoulder in two years or three years, so be it,” he says. “The one thing that is for sure is that the Bulldogs logo is going to stay here in Hamilton on the front of the jersey.”
That said, he hopes to continue the relationship. However, discussions about extending the affiliation have not yet begun, he insists. When they do, he says he’ll recuse himself from the Habs’ boardroom for those talks.
Thanks for the link, I saw his comments on the local TV news and they didn't explain it as well as the article you linked, appreciate it.
Seems strange you could be part owner of a NHL club and an unaffiliated AHL club, but if it's not against the rules..... well then so be it.
I got to know Michael Andlauer over several season when his booth was just behind our seats. If I had to describe Mr. Andlauer in 2 words, they would be honesty and integrity. If he says the Bulldogs are not moving, I believe him.....
Thanks for the link, I saw his comments on the local TV news and they didn't explain it as well as the article you linked, appreciate it.
Seems strange you could be part owner of a NHL club and an unaffiliated AHL club, but if it's not against the rules..... well then so be it.
I got to know Michael Andlauer over several season when his booth was just behind our seats. If I had to describe Mr. Andlauer in 2 words, they would be honesty and integrity. If he says the Bulldogs are not moving, I believe him.....
I am not sure why you think it would be strange that he could be a part owner of an NHL team and fully own an AHL team. He probably has zero input into the operations of the Canadiens. Also, how would it be detrimental to either team? The AHL teams have little influence on their rosters so what we he do as owner of an AHL team that would benefit the Canadiens if, lets say, the Bulldogs were affiliated with the Leafs?
Its not like owning 2 NHL teams like Wirtz did way back when he treated the Blackhawks like the feeding ground for his beloved Red Wings.
The best that I can find is that their ownership group has a voting interest in the team. However, that article is a few years old. They do not appear in any recen thing. The article also stated that the interest is from their dad investing in the Penguins initially when Lemeiux bought the team. I think that Burkle has since bough out substantial members, but I have no proof of that only my own faulty memory.
The best that I can find is that their ownership group has a voting interest in the team. However, that article is a few years old. They do not appear in any recen thing. The article also stated that the interest is from their dad investing in the Penguins initially when Lemeiux bought the team. I think that Burkle has since bough out substantial members, but I have no proof of that only my own faulty memory.
RFA:
you should know better than ask whether the Brooks Brothers have interests in WB/Scranton, under bylaws, just like Roy Boe's departure from Worcester/Springfield to run Bridgeport, Boe had to relinquish the rights in Worcester..... same here, these brothers had to divest themselves or be bought out for them to buy the Phantoms from Comcast, otherwise Adirondack would still be on the sale list....
you should know better than ask whether the Brooks Brothers have interests in WB/Scranton, under bylaws, just like Roy Boe's departure from Worcester/Springfield to run Bridgeport, Boe had to relinquish the rights in Worcester..... same here, these brothers had to divest themselves or be bought out for them to buy the Phantoms from Comcast, otherwise Adirondack would still be on the sale list....
So, it may be against by-laws to own two AHL clubs but I am not sure why it would be weird to have a minority ownership in an NHL club and a majority ownership in an AHL club not affiliated with that NHL club.
So, it may be against by-laws to own two AHL clubs but I am not sure why it would be weird to have a minority ownership in an NHL club and a majority ownership in an AHL club not affiliated with that NHL club.
It is against AHL by-laws to own two AHL clubs. That is why Orlando (the 2001 Turner Cups champs) couldn't join the AHL with the I-6 teams. They were owned by the same people as Grand Rapids.
It is against AHL by-laws to own two AHL clubs. That is why Orlando (the 2001 Turner Cups champs) couldn't join the AHL with the I-6 teams. They were owned by the same people as Grand Rapids.
Interesting. I never knew that about Orlando.
__________________
The Chicago Wolves = 2008 Calder Cup Champions!
