Talk:Quebec Citadelles

Untitled

Note that there was another Quebec Citadels team, at least in 1947. I don't know anything more about them, but see this photo from Library and Archives Canada [1] Maybe one of our hockey historians can add info about this team to the article... Cheers, Fawcett5 01:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Well thats Jacques Plante in the front row... looking at his stats he played for a Quebec team in the QJML. I'm assuming thats stands for "Quebec Junior Hockey League". They all look really young. Its not minor league like the reference I editted out a while ago if that what this is about. Quote: "Quebec Citadelles (French: Citadelles de Québec) was the name of a minor league hockey franchise that saw at least two incarnations since the establishment of formal organized ice hockey in North America." Given that its a reference to a major landmark in Quebec (Citadelle of Quebec), I would imagine there have been other teams named as such. Mention them if you want, but the AHL Citadelles of this article was the only professional hockey team to operated under that name and would have no ties to any other sports team named similarly. ccwaters 02:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

1) The first notable team to use the Citadelles name was around much longer thant just the 40's, played in the QJHL, and -- as I re-edited the article to note -- developed Béliveau & Plante before they went to the big leagues. Was shut down in 1969 (I think). The AHL Citadelles were emphatically *not* the first professional team to use the name.

2) I re-edited the article to take note that the Citadelles did not become the Bulldogs (which existed since 1996, I believe), but were actually merged with Hamilton for a year, before the Canadiens bought the team outright from the Oilers.

Thanks for all the work!

1) So it was a junior team? I don't know much about junior hockey history, but today the juniors are neither "minor" or "professional." Given that Plante was only 17 or 18 in that pic, I would assume the same applied back then.

2) Yeah, there actually 2 Bulldogs teams. When the Oilers announced they were suspending operations of the first team, local interests scrambled to find a replacement. The bought and relocated the Citadelles. There was a name the team contest and the "Bulldogs" won. Edmonton had a partial affiliation with that new team in their first season, before they reactivated their dormant franchise as the Toronto Roadrunners. I have references at Talk:Hamilton Bulldogs

Anyway, I'll be reformating the article to look like other defunct teams in the A. see Binghamton Rangers for an example ccwaters 13:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

References about Quebec -> Hamilton move

Start from American Hockey League press releases...

The move: http://www.theahl.com/AHLNews0207/03_ham.html

The recycling of the Bulldog name: http://www.theahl.com/AHLNews0303/20_ham.html

ccwaters 15:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Jeez -- your OWN REFERENCES make it clear that there was a MERGER of the Bulldogs with the Citadelles for the '02-'03 season:

"For the 2002-03 season, the Montreal Canadiens and the Edmonton Oilers will have a sharing agreement, requiring each NHL team to supply half the players to the Hamilton Bulldogs."

"...the team's color scheme will switch to the familiar bleu, blanc et rouge of the Montreal Canadiens when the Canadiens take over a full affiliation in 2003-04. "

The teams even played against each other prior to the '02-'03 season. Nothing could be clearer that the Citadelles were merged into the Bulldogs for that one single season, with the Oilers & Canadiens mixing both their AHL-level talent. There was never two Bulldog teams.

Also, QMJHL is professional. They get paid. They're considered professional by NCAA standards. The reference to the earlier Citadelles should stay, if not for the professional status of QMJHL, then for historical value.

For the love of Pete, stop making the article inferior & less accurate to the earlier one!

http://mysite.verizon.net/creasemonkeyhockey/ahl/0203archive.html ... So, the Oilers reliquish the Bulldog trademarks in exchange for 1) negotiating a Southern Ontario territorial deal (read: they had been eying up Toronto), 2) a place to put their prospects in the interim.

Ohhh... its the old major juniors get travel stipends (that's legalese for "allowance") therefore they are professional agrument. Yawn...

ccwaters 02:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Rebuttal to ccwaters above (w/explanation of RV'ing)

Sorry, but I only see the changes you've made make the article less accurate and less informative.

(1) QMJHL gets paid. They get money to play, albeit not much. Amateurs pay to play, professionals get money to play -- it is really simple. QMJHL players are considered, by all definitions, "professional", even if they are MINOR league...and the NCAA, IIHF and NHL agree. The wikipedia article on junior hockey even states that "Canadian junior hockey is recognized as professional by organizations such as the NCAA, as players receive a small stipend -- however, the earnings for junior players are invariably far smaller than can be earned in most levels of professional hockey...". Since this distinction no longer matters with regards to participation in the Olympic Games, it has become less important, but it still remains that American Junior Hockey is amateur, while Canadian Junior Hockey is professional.

(2) The Citadelles players *and* the Bulldogs players from '01-'02 played *AGAINST* each other that season. They were *different* teams. In fact, Quebec finished the regular season a single point ahead of Hamilton that year/

The following season, they played on the *SAME* team, *TOGETHER*. Both the Oilers and the Canadiens shared ownership and used the single AHL franchise as their ONE AHL-level affiliate. The Citadelles were merged into the Bulldogs.

The season *AFTER THAT* (2003-2004) the Oilers fully divested themselves of their partial ownership of the Bulldogs. Not before. The Canadiens *and* Oilers had shared ownership of the organization for one season. The link that you provided actually substantiates this and backs me up.

Furthermore, I've tried to change the language in the article to accomodate your views if you don't like the term "merged"

(3) In my opinion, you're making the article inferior by eliminating the reference to the prior Citadelles. One of the *major* reasons the AHL Citadelles chose that particular name was because of the links to the earlier QMJHL team and to Béliveau -- they used him in their marketing promotions regularly, and there are many promo photos with him in an AHL-Citdelles' sweater. To remove that information is petty and disingenuous. The earlier Citadelles team was very significant in ice hockey history, and references to it should stay.

This was emphatically NOT started as an article about an AHL team. It was started as an article about the history of the use of the team name "Citadelles" in Québec ice hockey. If you go to the Ice Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto, they not only had on display a AHL Citadelles sweater, but they also had photos of the earlier QMJHL team. Please don't water-down and confuse this entry for vindictive reasons. 20:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing in others. Anyway: I'm not being vindictive and I never editted out the QJHL (not the QMJHL, BTW) Citadelles' existence. Quite honestly, I think each team should have its own page. There's no need to share an article. Based on Special:Whatlinkshere/Quebec_Citadelles everything looks to be referencing the AHL team, and therefore this article should be for the AHL team. I'd suggest Quebec Citadelles (QJHL) for Plante's team.

QJHL Citadelles amatuerism/professionalism: Well, first off: is this a junior league? The only evidence I've seen is a dated photo with 17-18 year old Plante. Based on his age, I assume it is junior. I mentioned that assumption before so I don't think that status is contested, but if I'm wrong there, please let me know. Actually I'd appreciate any more details on the Quebec Junior Hockey League and its member teams. If you're knowledgable please start an article. Now from want I gather, the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League was established in 1969. You seem to have these 2 leagues confused. If they league are somehow related, please supply references. Back to the amatuerism/professionalism: I can't find anything about the IIHF's stance on the Majors Juniors: a reference would be nice. Everything I see points to the NHL currently and historically treating juniors as amatuer. In fact the NHL Amatuer Draft began in 1963 to "provide each team with an equal opportunity to acquire amateur players." In 1979, they changed the name to NHL Entry Draft to "reflect the inclusion of young players eligible for selection who had played professionally in the now-defunct World Hockey Association." (REF: http://www.nhl.com/futures/drafthistory.html Is that a good enough reference???????). NHL.com lists the major juniors as amatuer leagues (REF: http://www.nhl.com/futures/index.html ). Yes the NCAA does currently treat the juniors as professional (REF: NCAA Div I manual 12.2.3.2.4). Major Junior players are currently afforded a process to establish amatuer status (REF: NCAA Div I manual 12.2.3.2.4.1). I saw mentions of the NCAA further loosening those restrictions at uscho.com (college hockey news source) but its down at the moment. So, current status: you proven one organization wishywashy treatment of Junior hockey; an organization that also can't decide what native american references are allowed or devise a sane method of declaring a football champion. You also seem to be forget that we are discussing junior hockey status, quoting your copy, circa "1920s through the 1960s".

Hamilton <-> Quebec AHL franchise: This was only a few years ago. How quickly we forget. You seem to have the concepts of franchises and affiliations confused as well. "Sharing agreement" means dual affiliations, as in both NHL clubs send players to the same AHL team. It doesn't mean there are 2 franchises playing together (off hand the only time that happened in the AHL was when Eddie Shore sent his WWII-depleted Springfield Indians roster over to play with the Buffalo Bison for a season). Now the important part is "The Hamilton Bulldogs have announced the completion of the final step to secure the future of professional hockey in Hamilton". As in there wasn't going to be a team in Hamilton until the Citadelles were bought. That's because Edmonton suspended operation of the first Bulldog franchise. They wanted Toronto, but there wasn't a venue ready. They gave the trademark rights away (allowing the Citadelles franchise to assume that identity) and in return they got 1) an OK to be in within Hamiltons "territory" in Toronto. 2) A partial affiliation to develop their prospects while the Ricoh was being renovated. What you are implying though is the near bankrupt Oilers disolved their AHL property only to establish a new franchise in Toronto (burning a million or so in expansion fees) one year later.

I'm sorry if you don't approve of my references. I was unaware that press releases directly from the organizations involved were unacceptable. The theahl.com references are solid. The stuff from that guys site is just that BTW: an archive of league and team press releases. Those originally came straight from the Bulldogs, they're not his opinion or anything. I'm sure they can be verified via microfiche archives from Hamilton Spectator. Lets compare it to the references that I've asked you to supply all this time....hmmm...that didn't take long. Come on dude: I'm not getting paid for this. ccwaters 19:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

USCHO.com is back up. Here's that mention ( http://www.uscho.com/FAQs/?data=recruiting ). I've spent to much time on this: I'll look for specifics another day. And yes, USCHO is a valid reference. Its probably the most comprehensive source for NCAA hockey and a lot of media outlet's syndicate their articles. ccwaters 15:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Just confirmed that the historical Citadelles were a junior team. They hosted and participated in the '51 Memorial Cup . Furthermore prior to 1972 the Memorial Cup was "contested by two teams with the winners of the various branches of the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association participating in playdowns until with the Eastern Canadian Champions taking on the champions from Western Canada". (REFS: http://www.chl.ca/CHLMemorialCup04/history_1951.html , http://www.remparts.qc.ca/eng/index.asp?page=colisee_pepsi_histoire ). The "Canadian Amateur Hockey Association" is an odd name for a organization allegedly in the business of pro hockey. ccwaters 19:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Continued counter-argument/discussion

So, essentially, our differences come down to three things, two of which I think we mostly agree on:

1) I don't feel that this is nor should it be an AHL article. I think that we should not split the articles into two, since (A) there isn't enough information I've seen on the QJHL team to warrant a separate article (B) the QJHL team was quite famous (enough for HoF recognition) and responsible for the development of at least two Hall members (C) The AHL-Citadelles made a conscious effort to reference the older team, and the QJHL team's former existance was a key factor in the choice of the name and colours, etc. I've since tried to clean up the start of the article a bit, hopefully to your liking. I've added a brief link to why the name "Citadelles" was ever chosen at all.

2) You seem to object to the term "merged", although everything I've seen to date (including *your* references) support a one-year temporary merger of the Montreal Canadiens-owned Citadelles into the Bulldogs, before the Oilers divested themselves of partial ownership and shared affiliation. I don't know how else you'd properly describe it. I think we might actually agree here, but we're not explaining ourselves properly to one another.

3)The reference to "minor league" you feel is inaccurate for both clubs, as the QJHL should be properly designated as "Junior League"...although I agree that any reference to professional or amateur hockey would be problematic and should be eliminated -- the AHL is pro, the QJHL was what we'd probably consider today "amateur", and the QMJHL exists in a limbo more amateur than pro (but is, for the history of the Citadelles, moot, since you were right, I was conflating the QJHL with QMJHL). I've removed the reference to minor league.

Cheers

05:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

1)I'm still a little weary on this. Quebec isn't the only market that recycled team names. There have been 3 completely separate Cleveland Barons teams. If you can come up with more than 1 sentence on the QJHL team, I think it should have it own article and both should make reference to each other. Its not a demotion to give it another article. I'd contribute it myself, but all I know about them is mentioned above. Ditto for the entire QJHL and its members. If you can find specific dates that would be great.

2)I'll leave this alone for now. The demise of teams (like the first Bulldogs) isn't as well documented as the introduction of "new" teams. One is better PR than the other. I looked hard for more specific details of the whole Edmonton-Montreal swap. I think we can both agree that it was an odd situation. I'd imagine the best source would be the Hamilton Spectator but the online version is only accessible to print subscribers (how dumb is that?). I don't think the Philly library would have archives of that publication.

3) That's better. There's something about the phrase "feeder team" that doesn't quite settle with me. I don't that terminology is used much in minor league hockey (??). I'll leave it be though.

Anyway I'll leave it alone for now. Do you mind if I rearrange this a bit though? I won't omit anything, I just want to get into a format more like all the other teams I've played with. My goal is to have an uniform article for every AHL team, past and present.

ccwaters 13:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I came here in response to the request for a third opinion. I reviewed the last few versions and I tried to make some compromise changes to the page. I suggest that any future changes be made based on the most recent version, rather than reverting to a previous preferred version. I believe that will help us reach consensus more quickly. --JeremyStein 19:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)