[quote=""Pounder""]First, there's David Andrews using the state of the league address to make this comment:
http://blog.timesunion.com/hockey/other ... ess/14437/
Then rumors started heating up about Calgary seeking to move their interests out of Abbotsford... and perhaps to Utica. Some of the possibilities have been discussed here:
http://www.pjstar.com/news/x1522341785/ ... ermen-move
Of course, Andrews used the words "doable" and "not ready yet," and I believe that. It's also hard to know whether "parent clubs" are going to want to try to make this move (which probably involves buying out existing ownerships in someone's markets, where applicable) en masse, or can work haphazardly.
Shrug.[/quote]
THAT SO CALLED "Rumor" HAS EXISTED ever since the original I went into the expansion/merger back in 2001, the issue is and always has been that Anaheim has never operated under a sole owner of any affiliate, but look at Utah before that was sold to Cleveland, the question is do NHL teams want to own their own affiliates in this era, where outside of Toronto, tht sale by St. Louis of Peoria has been officially announced subject to league approval, as has been reported to Vancouver.... there's now an option that if Calgary stays in Abbotsford, that Peoria continues, just w/ the Canucks as the parent instead of the Blues who are heading to Rosemont, IL as of 4/1, THE Rivermen site has posted an impending sale of team to Vancouver. It's doubtful you'll see either SJ or LA move their affiliates westward, since SF and Ontario fit those profiles well, and Anaheim STRUCK OUT when they ruined Bakersfield once Iowa was terminated and sold to Dallas.... the other issue is does Houston stay?