PDA

View Full Version : WHL Board of Governors Review Tri-City Matter



Kristi
04-18-2005, 03:37 PM
WHL Board of Governors Review Tri-City Matter
Created: Apr 18, 2005

CALGARY, AB - The Western Hockey League Board of Governors held a conference call earlier today to review the status of the Tri-City franchise following a decision March 31, 2005 to deny relocation of the WHL Club to Chilliwack, B.C. for the 2005-06 season.

WHL Commissioner Ron Robison presented a report on options available to the League regarding the ownership of the Tri-City franchise and its long-term viability in the market. The WHL is encouraged by the interest that has been expressed by local investors in Tri-City and is exploring options which would preserve the franchise on a long term basis.

The WHL Board of Governors will reconvene on the evening on Thursday, April 21st to review this matter further and attempt to reach a resolution which serves the best interests of the League and its member franchises.

All inquiries regarding the Tri-City matter are to referred to WHL Commissioner Ron Robison.

Stay-Puft
04-18-2005, 04:03 PM
Hurry up and wait. Hurry up and wait. Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit drinking. :spineyes:

The_Vulk
04-18-2005, 04:29 PM
It is sure turning into a mess.

And if they (WHL governors) decide that it would be best for the franchise for new, local owners, but the current one does not want to sell...

Would they then have to think of allowing him an expansion team in.. Chilliwack for 2006-07? (Which would open the doors to others, like Edmonton)

Kristi
04-19-2005, 11:07 AM
It is sure turning into a mess.

And if they (WHL governors) decide that it would be best for the franchise for new, local owners, but the current one does not want to sell...

Would they then have to think of allowing him an expansion team in.. Chilliwack for 2006-07? (Which would open the doors to others, like Edmonton)

And at that point why not give Edmonton an expansion franchise as well as Chilliwack. Just get it all done at once.

My question is where will the get the talent to fill out the rosters? :confused:

Beaner
04-19-2005, 11:21 AM
The whl could be heading down the same slippery slope that the NHL did with expansion.......

grumphy
04-19-2005, 11:39 AM
The whl could be heading down the same slippery slope that the NHL did with expansion.......
Right now the parity in the league is pretty damn good. If we add another fifty players to the active rosters, we are sure to see a drop in that parity as well as the overall talent of the league. A very bad senario as I see it, but me thinks this is the way it will add up. All this to apease the mess Mr. Porter & company have got us into.
My vote on the whole issue would be to let the present team stay in Tri, and let Porter set up a new franchise in Chilawack, since he would already have the contacts set to do the recruting.
Edmonton is a different senario as they do not seem to want to develop an expansion, but purchase & move an existing team.
What a mess, relocating, building realocation of divisions, scheduling----time is running out to get things settled.

Jovorock
04-19-2005, 12:39 PM
The whl could be heading down the same slippery slope that the NHL did with expansion.......
Exactly adding more WHL teams will make this league look like the NHL. Twenty is good for right now.

Keep the Ams in Tri and tell Porter to sell it to local interests and give him first option on a expansion team when ever that is.

BWK
04-19-2005, 01:19 PM
And at that point why not give Edmonton an expansion franchise as well as Chilliwack. Just get it all done at once.

My question is where will the get the talent to fill out the rosters? :confused:

I think the talent would come from a couple of rule changes being talked about in the NHL.

I can't find a link for the first one but it a proposal to drop the team from 22 players to 19(20 ????). If the WHL adopted this rule, as the do with most NHL rules that would free up enough WHL players to stock two expansion teams.

The second is talk (again) of raising the draft age see bob mckenzies column (http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp). This could keep some junior players in the league for another year.

HAF
04-19-2005, 02:35 PM
.

I can't find a link for the first one but it a proposal to drop the team from 22 players to 19(20 ????). If the WHL adopted this rule, as the do with most NHL rules that would free up enough WHL players to stock two expansion teams.


I saw that somewhere too. I cant find the link either but I do remember reading that.

Stay-Puft
04-19-2005, 02:36 PM
I guess I have a hard time understanding what the big broo-ha-ha is about. First of all, Procter (Porter) and company filed for relocation and were denied. The went all-in (poker slang) and lost. If they feel that they can't come back here because of fan reaction or backlash, then sell it. Minimize your loses and move on. Wait for a better opportunity. You know, for most of us, you can wish/want in one hand and crap in the other and see which gets filled first. I think the same thing applies here. Porter can want to remain as an owner in the league, but he can't move it. Seems to me you can't have it both ways. The league really needs to look at what precedent are they setting by working a deal that might include expansion just to satisfy the "I am holier than thou" owners. What if Portland get an NHL team, and the WHL team says that they can't compete and are losing money, so the ownership decides that they need to move (relocate), but the US Division again says "no", ownership says they don't want to sell, do you again "expand" as a "compromise" so you don't hurt anyone's feelings?

The league has already said that the team is not moving. When it was sold to the current group, they had the clause to stay in the Tri-Cities for at least four years as a condition of league approval of the sale. I don't see why that can't be the same in this case to whomever they sell to (hopefully local interest). I'm just tired of the constant whining by Proctor, um Porter, who didn't even keep his word of staying four years.

Brad
04-19-2005, 03:37 PM
Given the watered down product on the ice, its amazing that the league is considering expansion by one team, let alone two.

Tinner
04-19-2005, 04:36 PM
there is enough talent to field more teams IF the WHL would comply with some rule changes that would eliminate the loss of scholarships. There are plenty of front line players playing in the various T2 leagues because of these rules. Does Edm, Chilliwack, Grande Prairie deserve teams? I'm not sure, but one thing is for sure, those centers would be great centers for teams and the fans.

That said, there are teams that are suffering financially and there are owners who are protecting their franchise by voting down healthy alternatives to some of the weaken teams. PG doesn't want anybody moving to Edm if they can't and Spo doesn't want TRi to move because of travel.......etc.etc.etc.

RunTheGoalie
04-19-2005, 09:07 PM
nevermind...

fightstrap50
04-19-2005, 09:40 PM
someone mentioned that 50 more players to accomidate the expansion team(s) would just put more strain on the existing tallent pool as it stands. So into my head pops the 50 player protected lists. So correct me if I am wrong, as im not sure, but that makes 100 players to accomidate the teams. Yes i know that not all the 50 players are actively playing in the league. But 100 players between two more teams is one hell of a long shot to have more than one good goal scoring line let alone solid defense throughout the league as d-men take up less roster spots than forwards do. And these days its all about defence first and great goalies. The rest in the middle can be worked on.
Can anyone help me out with some info?