The Sens/Leafs Rivalry

[Neon_Matrix]

The FUNNIEST part of all of that is that the owners of the Arena were pals with the owners of either the Canadiens or Bulldogs, I can no longer remember as I read that part over winter break, and like I said before, I have not had time to touch it since then and left it at home. From what I remember, they tried to coax the Arena owners to try and book all the ice for when NHA games had to be played to try and piss off Livingston and try to coax him to sell the team. Everyone essentially tried to backstab everyone else.

They may have suspended operations, but they sold the team which was renamed the St. Pats. The Quebec Bulldogs had done it previously, but sadly, never sold the team nor reactivated. The best part is the story about the Toronto Battalion team which was created in... 1916 or 1917, made up of Soldiers who were former NHA hockey players who applied to play as a team in the NHA in Toronto, but ultimately had to withdraw early into the season due to some legal technicalities and the fact people thought soldiers should be preparing, not playing hockey. Now THAT was a mess, but another example where a team withdrew but never operated again. In a way, the Arenas' were the lucky ones, as they were sold and started up again.

And eff off, not my fault I'm writing a 15 page essay on Passchendaele due friday which I have yet to start in any way, shape or form and have a 12 page paper examining the events of the Seven Oaks massacre in Red River due next thursday which I also have yet to start on. Couple that with a presentation the day before and these next two weeks are hell. So forgive me for not being able to go home for a day or two just to go look at a book. Give me time and you will get all the answers you want... ass... lol

And I think I own Total Hockey... or something like it I got for free awhile back. Man, I just seem to accumulate books... I have a shelf full of just hockey books at the moment and have about 3 or 4 more I am targeting to add to my collection this summer. Good times. Now I just need more time to read through a few I have yet to touch... can't wait for may!!

EDIT: Nevermind... found out it is the Official Illustrated NHL History or something. Meh, it was free so I won't complain.

[Webhamster]

Is neon a bigger Senators hater than Leafs fan?

I also think that it's kind of silly to group the modern senators with the senators of old. I mean the teams aren't connecting i anything but name and location.

Agreed. I like the Sens, but for them to claim 10 Stanley Cups won by a different franchise that had the same name is kinda dumb. I think it's already been outlined that the team moved to St. Louis and died after that. I could understand if they stayed, but the franchise moved.

The St. Louis Eagles franchise was bought by the league. No one ever said that the deed to the franchise didn't get taken out and dusted off in the early 90s.

There are lots of things that happen in the sports world that say one thing on paper, but in reality is something different. Take for example the San Jose Sharks "expansion".

Never once have I seen that listed anywhere. Provide me with a source (that isn't Wikipedia or some random guys website) and I'll believe it.

Sigh... "The city of Ottawa has been granted a new NHL expansion Franchise" or something like that. All my books are 2 hours away from me so I cannot go and look for something to counter that at the moment. But mark my words... I will prove it was a new expansion team, heck, even Phil Esposito supports the claim in "Thunder and Lightning" that Ottawa, like Florida, were two brand new teams awared by the league. Nothing about the old Ottawa team being controlled by the league or being given back to Ottawa. Never once have I seen ANYWHERE that that franchise was "bought" by the league and "put into cold storage." I honestly think you are making that up...

How about the New York Times from October 16, 1935? That a reliable enough source for you?

You have to pay if you want to retrieve the full article, but the abstract encapsulates it pretty good.

"The franchise, rights and players of the St. Louis Eagles hockey team, controlled by Redmond Quain's Ottawa syndicate, were purchased by the National Hockey League yesterday, it was announced by President Frank Calder following an emergency meeting at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel."

[Shane Does Art]

EDIT: Nevermind... found out it is the Official Illustrated NHL History or something. Meh, it was free so I won't complain.

Loved that book.

Is neon a bigger Senators hater than Leafs fan?

I also think that it's kind of silly to group the modern senators with the senators of old. I mean the teams aren't connecting i anything but name and location.

Agreed. I like the Sens, but for them to claim 10 Stanley Cups won by a different franchise that had the same name is kinda dumb. I think it's already been outlined that the team moved to St. Louis and died after that. I could understand if they stayed, but the franchise moved.

The St. Louis Eagles franchise was bought by the league. No one ever said that the deed to the franchise didn't get taken out and dusted off in the early 90s.

There are lots of things that happen in the sports world that say one thing on paper, but in reality is something different. Take for example the San Jose Sharks "expansion".

Never once have I seen that listed anywhere. Provide me with a source (that isn't Wikipedia or some random guys website) and I'll believe it.

Sigh... "The city of Ottawa has been granted a new NHL expansion Franchise" or something like that. All my books are 2 hours away from me so I cannot go and look for something to counter that at the moment. But mark my words... I will prove it was a new expansion team, heck, even Phil Esposito supports the claim in "Thunder and Lightning" that Ottawa, like Florida, were two brand new teams awared by the league. Nothing about the old Ottawa team being controlled by the league or being given back to Ottawa. Never once have I seen ANYWHERE that that franchise was "bought" by the league and "put into cold storage." I honestly think you are making that up...

How about the New York Times from October 16, 1935? That a reliable enough source for you?

You have to pay if you want to retrieve the full article, but the abstract encapsulates it pretty good.

"The franchise, rights and players of the St. Louis Eagles hockey team, controlled by Redmond Quain's Ottawa syndicate, were purchased by the National Hockey League yesterday, it was announced by President Frank Calder following an emergency meeting at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel."

Woah, that's some good finding.

[Neon_Matrix]

Is neon a bigger Senators hater than Leafs fan?

I also think that it's kind of silly to group the modern senators with the senators of old. I mean the teams aren't connecting i anything but name and location.

Agreed. I like the Sens, but for them to claim 10 Stanley Cups won by a different franchise that had the same name is kinda dumb. I think it's already been outlined that the team moved to St. Louis and died after that. I could understand if they stayed, but the franchise moved.

The St. Louis Eagles franchise was bought by the league. No one ever said that the deed to the franchise didn't get taken out and dusted off in the early 90s.

There are lots of things that happen in the sports world that say one thing on paper, but in reality is something different. Take for example the San Jose Sharks "expansion".

Never once have I seen that listed anywhere. Provide me with a source (that isn't Wikipedia or some random guys website) and I'll believe it.

Sigh... "The city of Ottawa has been granted a new NHL expansion Franchise" or something like that. All my books are 2 hours away from me so I cannot go and look for something to counter that at the moment. But mark my words... I will prove it was a new expansion team, heck, even Phil Esposito supports the claim in "Thunder and Lightning" that Ottawa, like Florida, were two brand new teams awared by the league. Nothing about the old Ottawa team being controlled by the league or being given back to Ottawa. Never once have I seen ANYWHERE that that franchise was "bought" by the league and "put into cold storage." I honestly think you are making that up...

How about the New York Times from October 16, 1935? That a reliable enough source for you?

You have to pay if you want to retrieve the full article, but the abstract encapsulates it pretty good.

"The franchise, rights and players of the St. Louis Eagles hockey team, controlled by Redmond Quain's Ottawa syndicate, were purchased by the National Hockey League yesterday, it was announced by President Frank Calder following an emergency meeting at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel."

I'm impressed. I was always under the impression that the players were bought out by the league but the team itself stayed as the property of the owner. Learn something new every day. I am curious as to what the rest of the article says though...

Although, this franchise has never been reactivated... otherwise, why would every source on the 1992 expansion talk about both Tampa AND Ottawa being granted new NHL franchises?

There is one book I plan to check out to see if anything is mentioned about the old Sens teams in conjunction to the expansion in 1992, "Road Games" by Roy Macgreggor. It may have some info... but who knows.

[zer0dotcom]

I've always considered the current Senators to be a brand new franchise, since it was an expansion team, and since the original Senators had folded, they simply assumed the identity. They pay homage to the original team by hanging banners in the arena for historical purposes, but strictly speaking, the old senators and the current ones are two completely different teams.

I don't have a problem with the current team honoring the old teams achievement, I'm a big fan of historical acknowledgeable. But the team that employs Heatley, Aflie, Gerber and others has NOT won the Stanley Cup at any point. If the league were to classify the expansion bid as a re-activation of the franchise, that would be a different scenario.

[Webhamster]

How about the New York Times from October 16, 1935? That a reliable enough source for you?

You have to pay if you want to retrieve the full article, but the abstract encapsulates it pretty good.

"The franchise, rights and players of the St. Louis Eagles hockey team, controlled by Redmond Quain's Ottawa syndicate, were purchased by the National Hockey League yesterday, it was announced by President Frank Calder following an emergency meeting at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel."

Woah, that's some good finding.

History degree, my friend. It's all about knowing where to look.

[Webhamster]

[

How about the New York Times from October 16, 1935? That a reliable enough source for you?

You have to pay if you want to retrieve the full article, but the abstract encapsulates it pretty good.

"The franchise, rights and players of the St. Louis Eagles hockey team, controlled by Redmond Quain's Ottawa syndicate, were purchased by the National Hockey League yesterday, it was announced by President Frank Calder following an emergency meeting at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel."

I'm impressed. I was always under the impression that the players were bought out by the league but the team itself stayed as the property of the owner. Learn something new every day. I am curious as to what the rest of the article says though...

Although, this franchise has never been reactivated... otherwise, why would every source on the 1992 expansion talk about both Tampa AND Ottawa being granted new NHL franchises?

There is one book I plan to check out to see if anything is mentioned about the old Sens teams in conjunction to the expansion in 1992, "Road Games" by Roy Macgreggor. It may have some info... but who knows.

I think it can be summed up this way:

- League buys out the Senators/Eagles in 1935 and puts the franchise into cold storage for a while and then revokes the franchise like they did with the Brooklyn/New York Americans and, to a lesser extent, the Montreal Maroons (who were never bought by the league but allowed to go "dormant" and were supposed to be re-activated and end up in Philly in 1949 until the six owners quashed it because they didn't want any competition). Of course, it's also possible that the St. Louis/Ottawa, Brooklyn/New York, and Montreal franchises are still "legally" alive and may have never actually been officially "revoked". That would require a detailed look at the league records to determine. Kind of like the "blue laws" that are still on the books all over the place. Technically valid, but ignored.

- Ottawa gets an "expansion" team in 1992 that's considered a new franchise

- The league certifies through that presentation I remember seeing, but still have to verify actually happened, that Ottawa has been "re-admitted" not as a continuation of the 1935 entity but as a separate new team.

- The new team buys the name rights, logos, and marks from the Gorman family.

Yes, their "claim" on the 10 cups is tenuous at best, but there's no other team around here who's ever going to lay claim to them so what's the harm in associating yourself to the rich history of the market you serve? I think the intent of the NHL's "re-admittance" declaration was to provide the technical means they needed to establish that link. So their claim has, at the very least, the tacit approval of the NHL.

[Neon_Matrix]

How about the New York Times from October 16, 1935? That a reliable enough source for you?

You have to pay if you want to retrieve the full article, but the abstract encapsulates it pretty good.

"The franchise, rights and players of the St. Louis Eagles hockey team, controlled by Redmond Quain's Ottawa syndicate, were purchased by the National Hockey League yesterday, it was announced by President Frank Calder following an emergency meeting at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel."

Woah, that's some good finding.

History degree, my friend. It's all about knowing where to look.

I'm a year and a month and a half away from an honours.

[Neon_Matrix]

[

How about the New York Times from October 16, 1935? That a reliable enough source for you?

You have to pay if you want to retrieve the full article, but the abstract encapsulates it pretty good.

"The franchise, rights and players of the St. Louis Eagles hockey team, controlled by Redmond Quain's Ottawa syndicate, were purchased by the National Hockey League yesterday, it was announced by President Frank Calder following an emergency meeting at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel."

I'm impressed. I was always under the impression that the players were bought out by the league but the team itself stayed as the property of the owner. Learn something new every day. I am curious as to what the rest of the article says though...

Although, this franchise has never been reactivated... otherwise, why would every source on the 1992 expansion talk about both Tampa AND Ottawa being granted new NHL franchises?

There is one book I plan to check out to see if anything is mentioned about the old Sens teams in conjunction to the expansion in 1992, "Road Games" by Roy Macgreggor. It may have some info... but who knows.

I think it can be summed up this way:

- League buys out the Senators/Eagles in 1935 and puts the franchise into cold storage for a while and then revokes the franchise like they did with the Brooklyn/New York Americans and, to a lesser extent, the Montreal Maroons (who were never bought by the league but allowed to go "dormant" and were supposed to be re-activated and end up in Philly in 1949 until the six owners quashed it because they didn't want any competition). Of course, it's also possible that the St. Louis/Ottawa, Brooklyn/New York, and Montreal franchises are still "legally" alive and may have never actually been officially "revoked". That would require a detailed look at the league records to determine. Kind of like the "blue laws" that are still on the books all over the place. Technically valid, but ignored.

- Ottawa gets an "expansion" team in 1992 that's considered a new franchise

- The league certifies through that presentation I remember seeing, but still have to verify actually happened, that Ottawa has been "re-admitted" not as a continuation of the 1935 entity but as a separate new team.

- The new team buys the name rights, logos, and marks from the Gorman family.

Yes, their "claim" on the 10 cups is tenuous at best, but there's no other team around here who's ever going to lay claim to them so what's the harm in associating yourself to the rich history of the market you serve? I think the intent of the NHL's "re-admittance" declaration was to provide the technical means they needed to establish that link. So their claim has, at the very least, the tacit approval of the NHL.

The Hockey Hall of Fame still considers them two separate teams, hence the blurb accompanying the Prince of Wales trophy. I believe if this was in fact false, the league would make them change the description, but since it remains that way, then the league must also feel the same.

What would make ALL this better is if everyone came onto the same page and either agree the current Sens can "claim" the old Sens accomplishments or not. Since some sources consider them the same team and others don't, it creates this confusion. What would make ME feel better is if they take down the current banners, burn them, and create new ones that REFLECT the original teams that won them, much like what the Leafs did when they moved into the ACC. If you're going to honour a team that won them, use their identity, not yours. Until they do the right thing, I will be bitter about it because they are deceiving those hockey fans who don't know much and tricking them into believing history which is not exactly true or accurate.

[Webhamster]

The Hockey Hall of Fame still considers them two separate teams, hence the blurb accompanying the Prince of Wales trophy. I believe if this was in fact false, the league would make them change the description, but since it remains that way, then the league must also feel the same.

What would make ALL this better is if everyone came onto the same page and either agree the current Sens can "claim" the old Sens accomplishments or not. Since some sources consider them the same team and others don't, it creates this confusion. What would make ME feel better is if they take down the current banners, burn them, and create new ones that REFLECT the original teams that won them, much like what the Leafs did when they moved into the ACC. If you're going to honour a team that won them, use their identity, not yours. Until they do the right thing, I will be bitter about it because they are deceiving those hockey fans who don't know much and tricking them into believing history which is not exactly true or accurate.

Yes, even I, as a Senators fan, had issues with those banners when they were unveiled. At the very least, they shouldn't have the "modern" logo on them. Now, the team also retired #8 that night as a tribute to Frank Finnigan who was the last living player from the 1927 team and was the goodwill ambassador during the expansion bid process. Should that be undone as well because they are retiring a number for another franchise?

Like I said, the link is tenuous at best, but hey it's just a game after all. I don't think it's worth getting in knots over. I think it's wrong to try to claim them for this franchise, however, I think they should promote them as "Continuing the rich history of local hockey..." or something along those lines.

But, just to add, if the league had a problem with the team claiming those cups you'd think they'd probably have said something by now. Since they haven't, I take that as a tacit approval, even though the records for both franchises are kept separately.

[Neon_Matrix]

The Hockey Hall of Fame still considers them two separate teams, hence the blurb accompanying the Prince of Wales trophy. I believe if this was in fact false, the league would make them change the description, but since it remains that way, then the league must also feel the same.

What would make ALL this better is if everyone came onto the same page and either agree the current Sens can "claim" the old Sens accomplishments or not. Since some sources consider them the same team and others don't, it creates this confusion. What would make ME feel better is if they take down the current banners, burn them, and create new ones that REFLECT the original teams that won them, much like what the Leafs did when they moved into the ACC. If you're going to honour a team that won them, use their identity, not yours. Until they do the right thing, I will be bitter about it because they are deceiving those hockey fans who don't know much and tricking them into believing history which is not exactly true or accurate.

Yes, even I, as a Senators fan, had issues with those banners when they were unveiled. At the very least, they shouldn't have the "modern" logo on them. Now, the team also retired #8 that night as a tribute to Frank Finnigan who was the last living player from the 1927 team and was the goodwill ambassador during the expansion bid process. Should that be undone as well because they are retiring a number for another franchise?

Like I said, the link is tenuous at best, but hey it's just a game after all. I don't think it's worth getting in knots over. I think it's wrong to try to claim them for this franchise, however, I think they should promote them as "Continuing the rich history of local hockey..." or something along those lines.

But, just to add, if the league had a problem with the team claiming those cups you'd think they'd probably have said something by now. Since they haven't, I take that as a tacit approval, even though the records for both franchises are kept separately.

To be honest... I don't think the league cares, as long as they get money. Whatever may sell a few more shirts or hats is probably fine by them. The only people you will find questioning it are hockey historians and possibly some members of the organization. I like the way you think on the matter and I agree with your ideas on how they could change it. No I do not think they should take down the Finnigan banner as he did cheerlead the return of hockey to Ottawa.

If they are going to hang those banners, they should make them reflect the team that won them. Hell, they even screwed up the Eastern Confrence Champs banner by putting the NEW logo on it. Its like they really can't do anything right when it comes to logos and banners. Until the Stanley Cup banners are changed, I will keep my crusade!!

[Shane Does Art]

The Hockey Hall of Fame still considers them two separate teams, hence the blurb accompanying the Prince of Wales trophy. I believe if this was in fact false, the league would make them change the description, but since it remains that way, then the league must also feel the same.

What would make ALL this better is if everyone came onto the same page and either agree the current Sens can "claim" the old Sens accomplishments or not. Since some sources consider them the same team and others don't, it creates this confusion. What would make ME feel better is if they take down the current banners, burn them, and create new ones that REFLECT the original teams that won them, much like what the Leafs did when they moved into the ACC. If you're going to honour a team that won them, use their identity, not yours. Until they do the right thing, I will be bitter about it because they are deceiving those hockey fans who don't know much and tricking them into believing history which is not exactly true or accurate.

Yes, even I, as a Senators fan, had issues with those banners when they were unveiled. At the very least, they shouldn't have the "modern" logo on them. Now, the team also retired #8 that night as a tribute to Frank Finnigan who was the last living player from the 1927 team and was the goodwill ambassador during the expansion bid process. Should that be undone as well because they are retiring a number for another franchise?

Like I said, the link is tenuous at best, but hey it's just a game after all. I don't think it's worth getting in knots over. I think it's wrong to try to claim them for this franchise, however, I think they should promote them as "Continuing the rich history of local hockey..." or something along those lines.

But, just to add, if the league had a problem with the team claiming those cups you'd think they'd probably have said something by now. Since they haven't, I take that as a tacit approval, even though the records for both franchises are kept separately.

To be honest... I don't think the league cares, as long as they get money. Whatever may sell a few more shirts or hats is probably fine by them. The only people you will find questioning it are hockey historians and possibly some members of the organization. I like the way you think on the matter and I agree with your ideas on how they could change it. No I do not think they should take down the Finnigan banner as he did cheerlead the return of hockey to Ottawa.

If they are going to hang those banners, they should make them reflect the team that won them. Hell, they even screwed up the Eastern Confrence Champs banner by putting the NEW logo on it. Its like they really can't do anything right when it comes to logos and banners. Until the Stanley Cup banners are changed, I will keep my crusade!!

Honestly, every time I see that damn Conference championship banner I get so frustrated, I love looking back at those 'swoop' jerseys and remembering the last playoffs, and to think they put that new logo on that oh-so-boring banner, it just grinds my gears...

...That is all.

[Webhamster]

How about the New York Times from October 16, 1935? That a reliable enough source for you?

You have to pay if you want to retrieve the full article, but the abstract encapsulates it pretty good.

"The franchise, rights and players of the St. Louis Eagles hockey team, controlled by Redmond Quain's Ottawa syndicate, were purchased by the National Hockey League yesterday, it was announced by President Frank Calder following an emergency meeting at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel."

Woah, that's some good finding.

History degree, my friend. It's all about knowing where to look.

I'm a year and a month and a half away from an honours.

Well, you might get some use out of the NYT Archive. All articles published in the paper from 1851-1922 and 1987-2008 are available for free. 1923-1986 are still pay-per view. I had alot of fun reading all kinds of interesting articles when they opened up the archive last fall. Newspaper writers really knew how to write at the turn of the century. One of the most stunning things about reading some of those articles was the blatant racism that existed in those days. You can hear about it, but when you actually read it written in a *news story* from the time that is supposed to be impartial it really hits you.

[Neon_Matrix]

How about the New York Times from October 16, 1935? That a reliable enough source for you?

You have to pay if you want to retrieve the full article, but the abstract encapsulates it pretty good.

"The franchise, rights and players of the St. Louis Eagles hockey team, controlled by Redmond Quain's Ottawa syndicate, were purchased by the National Hockey League yesterday, it was announced by President Frank Calder following an emergency meeting at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel."

Woah, that's some good finding.

History degree, my friend. It's all about knowing where to look.

I'm a year and a month and a half away from an honours.

Well, you might get some use out of the NYT Archive. All articles published in the paper from 1851-1922 and 1987-2008 are available for free. 1923-1986 are still pay-per view. I had alot of fun reading all kinds of interesting articles when they opened up the archive last fall. Newspaper writers really knew how to write at the turn of the century. One of the most stunning things about reading some of those articles was the blatant racism that existed in those days. You can hear about it, but when you actually read it written in a *news story* from the time that is supposed to be impartial it really hits you.

At the Toronto Reference Library, in the basement you can access every single Toronto Star article ever written, even when it was the Daily Star or w/e it used to be called. From its website you have to pay for it but if you go to that library you can access it all for free. It is pretty cool, but damn hard to read as most articles are photocopies in PDF... not re-typed out...

[SenatorJake]

Hey... I work in archives here in Ottawa. It's TV though so it's a bunch of old film and videos about the "thrilling" world of federal politics. I also own Total Hockey (95-96... I think) and this old book by Brian MacFarlane about the history of the Stanley Cup from 1893 until the Vancouver/Buffalo expansion... it's got alot of interesting old tyme hockey stories that have been forgotten with time. Anyways, Neon Matrix, you seem to be reconsidering your once strong stance about Ottawa's Stanley Cups. What's going on man?

Also while I'm here I would like to say that this topic which was supposed to be about Leafs and Sens fans insulting each other is turning into this nerdy discussion about hockey history... that's pretty cool.

So here's what I can bring to this discussion:

"I also seem to remember Ottawa suspended operations in '33 before being sold... although I need to check this."

-Neon Matrix

Yes, this is entirely true. They had a year to get their proverbial :censored: together... they obviously did not.

"In addition, Toronto was the second smallest market in the League at that time and was not yet close to being the powerforce city it is now."

-Neon Matrix

Do you know how small Ottawa was back then? We're talking tiny.

"But I would appreciate an appology for that tirade you went on."

-Neon Matrix

No.

"I don't have the book with me here, but I am currently reading one about how the NHA turned into the NHL by reforming without former Toronto franchise owner Livingston. There was some weird technicality where that team came into the NHL, owned by someone else, and won the Stanley Cup their first year in operation. "

-Neon Matrix

The owners of the original clubs hated that Livingston guy so much they formed the NHL without him. In fact that was the main premise behind creating the NHL, to drive Livingstone out. He was not invited to participate in the new league . I guess that's basically a recap of the article that followed that statement. Frankly, Neon Matrix, I'm surprised you didn't know that.

"Next time I'm at my parents' place I'm going to have to grab the VHS copy of the first Senators game from 1992 that I recorded and saw sitting on a shelf in the basement a few weeks ago. I hope it's still watchable because I swear I remember John Ziegler making a presentation during the pre-game that proclaimed the Senators were being "re-admitted to the league" and presented a certificate to Bruce Firestone confirming that declaration."

-Webhamster

Yeah, I watched that game in '92 and we beat the Habs (much like we will on Thursday). I'm pretty sure I remember Zeigler saying such a thing. Probably just for PR reasons, but that's good enough for me. Ah... Zeigler... those were the days.

[Neon_Matrix]

1. "But I would appreciate an appology for that tirade you went on."

-Neon Matrix

No.

2. "I don't have the book with me here, but I am currently reading one about how the NHA turned into the NHL by reforming without former Toronto franchise owner Livingston. There was some weird technicality where that team came into the NHL, owned by someone else, and won the Stanley Cup their first year in operation. "

-Neon Matrix

The owners of the original clubs hated that Livingston guy so much they formed the NHL without him. In fact that was the main premise behind creating the NHL, to drive Livingstone out. He was not invited to participate in the new league . I guess that's basically a recap of the article that followed that statement. Frankly, Neon Matrix, I'm surprised you didn't know that.

1. Awww, pretty please?

2. I did know that. The book just goes into excruciating detail about everything that went down with that. I even mentioned that in that quote...

Anyways, they had used plenty of other scare tactics the years prior to try and get him to sell the team which didn't happen which was why the NHL formed because the other owners couldn't get him to sell so they thought they'd just create a new league without him, where he can keep his own team and do whatever he wanted.

[friarcanuck]

1. "But I would appreciate an appology for that tirade you went on."

-Neon Matrix

No.

2. "I don't have the book with me here, but I am currently reading one about how the NHA turned into the NHL by reforming without former Toronto franchise owner Livingston. There was some weird technicality where that team came into the NHL, owned by someone else, and won the Stanley Cup their first year in operation. "

-Neon Matrix

The owners of the original clubs hated that Livingston guy so much they formed the NHL without him. In fact that was the main premise behind creating the NHL, to drive Livingstone out. He was not invited to participate in the new league . I guess that's basically a recap of the article that followed that statement. Frankly, Neon Matrix, I'm surprised you didn't know that.

1. Awww, pretty please?

2. I did know that. The book just goes into excruciating detail about everything that went down with that. I even mentioned that in that quote...

Anyways, they had used plenty of other scare tactics the years prior to try and get him to sell the team which didn't happen which was why the NHL formed because the other owners couldn't get him to sell so they thought they'd just create a new league without him, where he can keep his own team and do whatever he wanted.

Who would have thought that the NHL was the original No Homers Club.

[spartacat_12]

I really don't think that they're "claiming" the old Stanley Cups. They're honouring them. I have no problem with it (as you can see from my sig), but I would prefer it if they didn't use the new team's logo. I was also really upset when I saw the Eastern Confrence Champions banner with the new logo on it rather than the ones they actually wore in the finals. And even though I usually disagree with what Neon Matrix says, I do agree that most fans in Ottawa are bandwagoners (but not all of them). The thing is that most Sens "fans" didn't grow up with the Senators. Before there was a team in Ottawa people cheered for other teams. Once the new team came people began calling themselves Sens fans but really didn't have the same passion as they did for the team they liked growing up. Like my dad, who grew up cheering for Boston, and my mom, who grew up cheering for Montreal. Hopefully as time goes on the Sens' fan base will improve.

[Neon_Matrix]

I really don't think that they're "claiming" the old Stanley Cups. They're honouring them. I have no problem with it (as you can see from my sig), but I would prefer it if they didn't use the new team's logo. I was also really upset when I saw the Eastern Confrence Champions banner with the new logo on it rather than the ones they actually wore in the finals. And even though I usually disagree with what Neon Matrix says, I do agree that most fans in Ottawa are bandwagoners (but not all of them). The thing is that most Sens "fans" didn't grow up with the Senators. Before there was a team in Ottawa people cheered for other teams. Once the new team came people began calling themselves Sens fans but really didn't have the same passion as they did for the team they liked growing up. Like my dad, who grew up cheering for Boston, and my mom, who grew up cheering for Montreal. Hopefully as time goes on the Sens' fan base will improve.

I don't actually mind you anymore. Well, except for your sig.

If you REALLY feel they are presenting the cup wins wrong, why not make your own banners for them which reflect what you feel they should look like? I think that would be an awesome project for the concepts thread. Even redesigning the Eastern Conference champs banner would be great.

As long as that logo remains on the banner, they are more or less "claiming" them because if they were 'honouring' them, they would have them resemble the look of the team that won them.