Was the Club de Hockey Canadien really born on December 4, 1909?
A simple question that should have been easily and quickly answered. But unfortunately it wasn’t—and it’s still pending a true answer.
Yes, Les Canadiens were founded on that day by John Ambrose O’Brien, who beat George Kendall Kennedy to the race of creating a team with French Canadians.
That fact was confirmed on Canada’s biographical site, where it is written that Kennedy purchased the franchise Les Canadiens for $7,500.
Unfortunately, this is where the confusion starts.
In his book Trail for the Stanley Cup, Charles Coleman mentions that the Montreal Canadiens come from another franchise—not Les Canadiens but from the Haileybury Comets, another team owned and operated by John Ambrose O’Brien. That franchise was transferred to George Kendall on November 12, 1910.
I know that Wikipedia is not always the best of sources, but it’s a good start and there are many similar texts that use the Charles Coleman book as a reference.
This is not the only source for that information. On page 28 of his book Toute l'histoire illustre et merveilleuse du Canadien (ISBN 2-89043-197-5), Claude Mouton writes the same thing—George Kendall Kennedy got the Haileybury Comets franchise, not Les Canadiens.
Mr. Mouton doesn’t mention his sources—but maybe he’s also using the book by Charles Coleman, since it was written in 1966.
One thing that is certain is that Mr. Mouton doesn’t write that the Comets were transferred in Montreal and renamed the Montreal Canadiens. When reading the paragraphs on page 28, there’s something missing, as if history was cut.
In another article, of which I don’t know the original source, it is written that George Kendall Kennedy allowed John Ambrose O’Brien to temporarily use the word "Canadiens," which he legally owned.
This permission was given until his organisation, the Club Athlétique Canadien would decide to expand its activities to hockey.
Which he did in 1910, when M. Kendall inquired to the National Hockey Association about getting an expansion franchise. At the time, it is written that the franchise Les Canadiens was suspended by the league, because of financial problems and legal threats by George Kendall if the name Canadiens was not given back.
The Haileybury Comets also had financial problems, because the small town couldn’t support a professional hockey team—but it wasn’t suspended by the league.
According to this text, the league did not give a new franchise to George Kendall, but instead transferred him the Haileybury Comets.
The bottom line is simple. According to these books and texts, George Kendall Kennedy did not get the franchise Les Canadiens
12 comments Last one added 10 months ago — Leave a Comment
Miah D. 10 months ago
okay .. Daniel .. u can get me fired for the time I spend reading Hockey stuff on the net!! just kdding!
talking about wikipedia, I think that is where I red that the comets were a team (anglophones) which joined the NHA with the renfrew millionaires and the wanderers (that includes Ambrose O'Brien).
the NHA then had renfrew, haileybury,the wanderers,and toronto. apparently all english teams.
there were two leagues : the East Canadian Hockey Association (which had a french team: the national) and the NHA
then Ambrose O'Brien thought it would create some nice rivalry to have a french canadian team in the NHA and created the Montreal Canadiens with exclusively french canadian players.
so we are now in December 1909.
Edit Comment Cancel
Daniel Bigras 10 months ago
Sorry. :-)
But the point is that the Les Canadiens franchise was sold to Toronto and Kendall bought the Comets. Not the Canadiens, the Comets and he renamed them Canadiens.
That's completely different, if it's the truth.
Edit Comment Cancel
Robert Lefebvre 10 months ago
Daniel - Congrats on a great piece here in questioning the origins of the Club De Hockey Canadiens.
I'm Robert L, from the Eyes On The Prize source from which you quote. I just wanted to add that my sources for information on these dates and facts were culled from the book "La Glorieuse Histoire Des Canadiens" by Pierre Bruneau and Léandre Normand, published in 2002.
What the authors of this tome endeavored to accomplish was clarify many of the points first brought out in Claude Mouton's fine book from two decades prior. In looking to purchase either of these two books for referencing at my site, I held both in my hands and read through them thouroughly, before deducing that the latter 2002 work was the more detailed and accurate of the two.
In Bruneau and Normand's 743 page essay, they expand greatly on many of Mouton's fact, and I firmly believe that their book is the most complete reference guide available on the history of the Canadiens that has been published up to this point.
As for clarifying the questions brought up in your article, the present day Habs are in fact the one time Haileybury Comets.
It seems that for all intents and purpsoses, the franchise transactions that took place after the initial 1909-10 season, existed for the most part, on paper more than on the ice.
My take is that the original Canadiens franchise owned by Amrose O'Brien and hence suspended by the NHA after one season was promised to Toronto interests.
My calculated guess, and this is strictly IMO, is that it was the first of the dormant franchises transferred, as it had incurred the most debt of the disbanded teams. George Kendall Kennedy, because he owned the copyright on the "Canadiens" name, would have been handed the franchise that had incurred the least debt, and Hailybury's roster in 1909-10 was surely less expensive than Canadiens.
The dormant Canadiens franchise most definitely became the Toronto Tecumsehs in 1912, and that was the franchise eventually owned by Eddie Livingstone. After several name changes and false starts, Livingstone killed off the Tecumsehs/Ontarios/Shamrocks entry, and then purchased the Blueshirts.
Upon the creation of the NHL in 1917, the Blueshirst were no longer Livinsgtone's - he still only owned a dormant Shamrocks club. Of course, the Blueshirts first morphed into the NHL Toronto Arena's, then the St. Patricks, and finally, our beloved rival Maple Leafs.
One last small clarification of note - quite trivial.
The original Canadiens franchise by O'Brien was in truth created on December 2, 1909, in a room at the Windsor Hotel in Montreal. The December 4 date, comes from the day it was announced to the media.
Jimmy Gardner, the owner of the Montreal Wanderers at the time, felt spurned by the owners of the CHA, a league that had been created just prior to the NHA. Without a league to play in, the Wanderers schemed with other teams in the CHA to disband it, and join the NHA instead. Needing a french rival team for the english Wanderers, Gardiner and O'Brien met on December 2 to finalize the creation of the original "Canadiens".
Edit Comment Cancel
Daniel Bigras 10 months ago
My goodness.. Robert! Amazing reply! So honored to have your contribution here!
I agree, I also fell in love tonight with 'La Glorieuse Histoire Des Canadiens.'
Because I'm back from the Quebec National Library and can confirm everything that you wrote here and on your blog. I would suggest you add your sources to add strengths to your articles, they are simply amazingly well written.
At the library, I read a few pages of the book 'Trail for a Stanley Cup Vol 1', by Charles Coleman.
I read a few pages of Lions of Winter, which is simply the french translation of 'Les Canadiens de 1910 à nos jours'. And that book, for the purpose of this discussion, is very weak and not a reliable source. The authors skipped 6 years of history in one paragraph.
And I fell in love with the book 'La glorieuse histoire des Canadiens' by Bruneau and Normand, published in late 2003. Book that I borrowed for 3 weeks. I felt like such a geek, it was the first time in 20+ years that I borrow a book in a library.
But one thing I can say quickly is that the Quebec National Library is quite amazing. So much information, in different format. The Microfilm library is extensive, that's how I could read the 'Trail of a Stanley cup Vol. 1' book.
The authors of the book 'Lions of Winter' are a little bit too vague for the purpose of this discussion.
On Page 27, 'In 1910-11, a challenge to the team name and right of franchise was forwarded by George Kendall, owner of the Club Athlétique Canadien, a very popular French-speaking sports club in the city. He told the NHA board of directors that he owned the rights of the Club Canadien name and would undertake very expensive and time-consuming litigation if a franchise was not forthcoming.'
Kendall wanted A franchise, not THE franchise. A fact that is confirmed with my other findings.
'League management quickly saw his argument, and also understood that the popularity of the CAC would almost ensure a successful fan base for the team, and Kendall received his franchise. With Georges ‘The Chicoutimi Cucumber’ Vezina in goal and stars like Didier Pitre and Jack Laviolette, Kendal’s Canadiens won their first Stanley Cup in 1916.'
First of, The Chicoutimi Cucumber made me laugh out loud in the library. I never knew we had a cucumber in net.
Secondly, as you can read, from receiving his franchise and winning the first Stanley Cup 6 years later, it's a big history jump in the same paragraph.
Thirdly, as I said earlier, he received 'his' franchise, it's not confirming if he received the 'Le' or 'Les Canadiens' franchise.
But yes, George Kendall DID purchase the Haileybury Comets, and ALL ITS ASSETS/PLAYERS.
Trail Of A Stanley Cup, Volume 1, Page 201:
'The Club Athlétique Canadien was granted a franchise, taking over Haileybury. It was understood that the Canadien club in acquiring the Haileybury franchise would also obtain the players of that club. However, the contracts up to that time did not provide any control over the players at the termination of a season and the clubs had bid against one another for their services.'
So, Kendall got the Comets and its players but at the end of a season, contracts are over and each team has to sign their players again.
He did not just get a paper. He got a franchise, named Jack Laviolette as GM, Coach and player, who decided to use his contacts to only hire french canadians. But as I said, each team, each year could sign completely new players.
The book 'La Glorieuse Histoire Des Canadiens' is simply an amazing piece of work, with lots of newspaper references which can help anyone in a search and the Quebec Library has microfilms for very old newspapers. It's also using the book from Claude Mouton as a reference, book written in 1986.
The first french canadian professional hockey team was the Montreal National and the NHA tried to woo them from the Canadian Hockey Association; they refused. So, the NHA asked if someone wanted to create a francophone only team in order to compete with the popularity of the National.
John Ambrose O'Brien's group was ready and created Le Canadien, or Les Canadiens, but in 'La Glorieuse Histoire', they mention Le Canadien.
They used that name because Jimmy Gardiner, a friend of O'Brien but also the Manager of the Montreal Wanderers, was involved in the negociations between the Wanderers and Kendall's CAC. Kendall wanted to purchase the Wanderers, rename them the Club Athlétique Canadien and make it a francophone team. Like he did with the Comets. The transaction failed, the Wanderers were sold to the owner of the Jubilee arena, Patrick Doran.
I also read something that is interesting, regarding something that has been mentionned before, that Kendall did not hire any players from the Comets, but only hired players from the suspended Les Canadiens franchise, that is also incorrect.
He did not hire players from the Comets, but he also didn't hire all the players from Les Canadiens. Of the 11 players on the 1910-11 Canadiens team, only 5 came from the first Les Canadiens franchise. The other 6 came from other teams or leagues. They hired a new manager, a new coach. Nobody from 'Les Canadiens'.
I wonder if we would have gutted the Wanderers from our history if that Wanderers/CAC transaction would have succeeded?
Edit Comment Cancel
Miah D. 10 months ago
he bought the comets, renamed the team canadiens. and then signed all the players of O'brien's canadiens but none of the comets.
o'brien's canadiens franchise and the renfrew kings franchise were sold to toronto interests and then the torontos and the toronto ontarios were born.
about Kendall's canadiens: the players were the same, the name was the same, the only thing that has changed was the owner.
does it make sense?
Edit Comment Cancel
Matt Eichel 10 months ago
Once again Daniel you've made another great read!
I don't know what else to say. Great read!
Edit Comment Cancel
Daniel Bigras 10 months ago
Thanks guys for the great comments, much appreciated and it motivates me all the time to contribute here!
Edit Comment Cancel
L.J. Burgess 10 months ago
So...it's settled then? We know?
Edit Comment Cancel
Daniel Bigras 10 months ago
No yet. More investigation is required. But it will be interesting to know why they consider the first Canadiens franchise as the founding team when only 5 players were hired from that team. It was legally a different franchise. But we are not including them in our history. Why not?
Thanks for the POTD L.J.!
Edit Comment Cancel
Robert Lefebvre 10 months ago
Daniel, the best way I could put it, is the Canadiens are celebrating the 100th year of an idea - that of a francophone team in Montreal.
Clearing Up The Question Of The Canadiens Origin And Age
http://wwwrealitycheckeyesontheprize.blogspot.com/2008/08/its-about-idea-folks-lately-on-internet.html
Edit Comment Cancel
Daniel Bigras 10 months ago
Robert, from what I uncovered, the Canadiens were created in the NHA because the Montreal National did not want to join the NHA. The Montreal National was the first professionnal team with only francophone players. So, the NHA asked if someone could create a team in order to compete with that club, to compete with the francophone fan base.
But amazing text that you wrote. I will go and reply later today.
Edit Comment Cancel
Daniel Bigras 10 months ago
What would be the best way to add to this article? I have so much information to add. Should I write it in a comment or update the article?
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.