Blues on the market

[barnburner]

I can see Pronger, Tkachuk and Weight being justified, but the Keenan era Blues were the poster children for profligacy.

I must admit this is making me relieved Laurie wasn't able to buy the Avs and Nuggets.

Don't get too comfortable... There is always the possibility that the two brother-in-laws might trade franchises - you end up with Laurie, and Kronecke takes the Blues...

.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

According to some sources, it will be *REALLY* hard for someone to move the Blues out of St. Louis - the team is the collateral for bonds issued for the arena, currently owing $62.4 million. The team's lease to the arena is tied to these bonds - when the bonds are paid off, the lease expires. The bonds are expected to be paid off in 2024. To move the team, one would have to pay off the bonds now or face legal action from the bondholders.

Also...Michael Shanahan Jr. - the son of the former owner and chairman of the Blues - is rumored to be one of the people seriously interested in buying the team.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sp...E24EECAEE2ADF8578625702400132450?OpenDocument

 

[Hasbro]

Don't get too comfortable... There is always the possibility that the two brother-in-laws might trade franchises - you end up with Laurie, and Kronecke takes the Blues...

.

Yeah I wonder how things are going in the paralel universe where Bill bought the Avs and Stan bought the Blues.

Here's the Rick Reilly column about the brothers-in-law's rivalry

Two years ago Bill was introduced at a press conference in Denver as the new owner of the Avalanche, the NBA Denver Nuggets and the Pepsi Center. He wrote a check for $400 million, started making moves -- even signed Avalanche superstar Peter Forsberg to a huge, long-term contract. But then stockholders howled that the price Bill had paid was too low and the bidding process had been too fast. They reopened the bidding. Bill got such a red ass over the deal that he refused to bid again. Ten months later Stan bought the whole kit and caboodle for $450 million.

Even though they live three miles from each other in Columbia, Mo., Bill and Stan sat nowhere near each other at that game in Denver. They don't sit near each other at Rams games. They don't sit together at Blues games. While sitting at a bar in Columbia one night last month, Bill told The Denver Post, "Stan knows as much about hockey as that coaster." Might they have dinner together sometime during the series? "Highly unlikely," said one Avalanche executive. It's going to be a very quiet Thanksgiving.

 

[WC Handy*]

The blues were saddled in debtr when they bought the team. From the financial side they didnt do so great , but they sure treated the fans right.

The Blues were $100M in debt when he took over and now they're north of $200M. I'm gonna be pissed if the buyer has to assume the debt that he built up.

 

[WC Handy*]

Then figure that in the last year of the Keenan era, paid attendance was about 15,000 with actual attendance estimated at perhaps 12,000

Keenan's last year attendance was nearly 17K and I've never been to a game at Savvis that had anywhere close to only 12K seats filled.

Enter Laurie. He bought the arena, team, and arena parking garage for $100 million

Laurie didn't buy the team for any amount.. he assumed the team's $100M debt and virtually got the team for free.

 

[WC Handy*]

"The Lauries made the decision to sell the team and the Savvis Center because they can no longer justify remaining active in a business which has lost more than $60 million in the past two years and is certain to continue to lose millions annually in the years ahead," Blues president Mark Sauer said in a statement."

Can someone help me understand how this lease works? If the city owns the building and the Blues have a longterm lease, how can the Lauries sell the Savvis Center? Is it the rights to the lease they are selling rather than the building itself? How do these longterm leases work? Even though the city owns the building, does the lessee assume all operating costs and debt service on the building as well as earn the revenue generated by the events held in the building while it is being leased? So the Blues situation is different from a team who doesn't own its home arena and pays the owner/management for the use of the building to play it's games? Thanks.

The Blues have absolute control over the building, meaning that they get any revenue brought in by any event in the built but they also are 100% responsible for maintaining the arena. They basically pay their lease to the city who pays the mortgage.

 

[RangerBoy]

Last month word leaked out of St. Louis that the Lauries would sell the Blues but would not make it public until the CBA was completed.

On that assumption, one could conclude that enough progress has been made for them to hang the “For Sale†shingle over their arena.

http://www.msgnetwork.com/content_n...ticle&sports=ice-hockey&team=other&league=nhl

 

[WC Handy*]

See, this is a reason why there should be FULL revenue and debt sharing in the league. If you want to ensure profitability of all organizations, you pool all your resources together, distribute accordingly, and you're well on your way to creating a financially viable league. But as long as there will be franchises that refuse to spend or refuse to share, none of this will ever happen.

Until the cost of living and the cost of advertising in every city is the same it's impossible to have FULL revenue sharing.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Keenan's last year attendance was nearly 17K and I've never been to a game at Savvis that had anywhere close to only 12K seats filled.

You didn't make some of the games early in the 1996-97 season. Trust me, there were many games where 13,000 in actual attendance was an optimistic figure. The Anaheim game (listed below) stands out - I sat in the club seats (free tix!) and there were maybe 11,000 there. The lower bowl was less than half-full, the upper bowl was perhaps half-full. We had 5 other people in our row the entire game. People at Keenan's last home game said there might have been 12,000 people there.

Bottom line, fewer people were buying tickets in '96, and even fewer were actually showing up. That was lots of revenue lost - revenue that could have gone to paying off debt. (Or, signing Adam Creighton to a 3-year, $12 million contract - take your pick.)

And the paid attendance figures for the Blues home games in the '96-97 season before Keenan got the axe:

Oct 4, vs. Colorado - 16,668
Oct.6, vs. Chicago - 15,128
Oct.17, vs. Toronto - 15,173
Oct.20, vs. San Jose - 15,657
Oct.26, vs. Washington - 15,329
Nov. 1, vs. Buffalo - 15,282
Nov. 3, vs. Dallas - 14,386
Nov. 14, vs. Tampa Bay - 14,615
Nov. 16, vs. Calgary - 16,384
Nov. 17, vs. Anaheim - 14,853
Nov. 21, vs. Phoenix - 15,552
Nov. 23, vs. Florida - 19,304
Dec. 1, vs. San Jose - 16,606
Dec. 5, vs. Phoenix - 16,459
Dec. 13, vs. Chicago - 19,634
Dec. 15, vs. Vancouver - 14,368

Laurie didn't buy the team for any amount.. he assumed the team's $100M debt and virtually got the team for free.

Yes...you're right. In essence, he did pay $100 million for the team - had he written a check, it would have paid off the team's debt.

 

[mr gib]

i just wanted to add - of course laurie is not popular here in vancouver - the radio boys were blabbling that laurie may not have liked what is in the new cba somewhat and is sending a message to gary - for what its worth - looked for a link but nothing -

 

[topshelf331]

i just wanted to add - of course laurie is not popular here in vancouver - the radio boys were blabbling that laurie may not have liked what is in the new cba somewhat and is sending a message to gary - for what its worth - looked for a link but nothing -

Thats understandable, considering the grizzlies. I know a couple of buisness owners who had to negotiate with the Lauries. From what i understand they are iron jawed negotiaters. In fact those guys despise the lauries after their meetings. I met the lauries at the stl downtown airport lounge one night after a game. They were very nice and considerate people. It msut hav ebeen a culture shock for them to be around a bunch of drunk airplane mechanics. Bill could toss em back with the best though. Their charter was running late. Anyways back to the subject. Basically they really dont negotiate too well. From what i heard its their way or the highway. Which really they have enough power to do it that way. But when it comes to trying to iron fist the city that wont go over too well.

 

[Frenzy31]

Well I have managed to read through most of this thread and being a long time Blues fan I would like to add a couple of things.

1. Lauries have done a good job with the team. We have been a contender for about the last 7-8 years. They have been willing to spend the money to create a team, that came close once, and was snake bitten a couple of times. Injuries at the wrong time, illness, a certain hand pass by one of our steadyist players...

Say what you want about over spending, letting 2 UFA's walk - both of which have not lived up to their contracts (Turgeon and Young), and two contracts that were a little much but gave the team a 4 year window (under the old CBA, Pronger, Walt, and Weight would have become UFA's at the same time after next season - which would lead to a possible selling of tallent or rebuild). But they were willing to put up the money - which at the time was needed to compete with the big boys (Aves and Wings and Stars) in the Western conference - create a winner - which the fans have enjoyed.

Up to the 2004 season, we have enjoyed greatest depth of any other Blues team. Granted we didn't win it all, but shoot, neither has Phili or Toronto.

People can scream about never having an elite number 1 tender, but they tend to be hard to acquire and Hasek didn't want to come to St. Louis, and Burke wasn't the answer. The Blues had a strong D and still have a very young D, and a two - three lines that could score.

People can point to Laurie closing the check book by Demitras departure, but Pav wanted 6 million dollars... and with the CBA expiring and the uncertainty of a cap, why would you reward a player who played like dung the previous season a large contract - none of the big named UFA's were signed. With the cap coming he and they would be available for less.

Just because an owner is willing to spend money on players to try and create a winner, doesn't mean he is ruining the sport. Fans in St. Louis should be happy. Look at baseball and all of the small market teams and middle market teams, they do not spend the money and let their tallent leave. All they care about is profit. Who cares if they have fans, the large market teams are paying them to suck. Same in Basketball if you look at the Clippers. They suck every year, get a high draft pick and then when it comes to paying for him when he really begins to develop, they let him leave or trade him for cheap tallent.

I, for one, will thank the Lauries for trying to create a winner in St. Louis. Thank you for being willing to take a loss to create entertainment for myself and the other Blues fans. And I appologize for those idiots who claim to be fans but don't appreciate it.

Bryon S.

 

[Hawker14]

Just because an owner is willing to spend money on players to try and create a winner, doesn't mean he is ruining the sport.

i respect your opinion, but in this case, i totally disagree. fiscal irresponsibility by the blues not only hurt themselves, but other mid market and the small market teams.

teams paying out $ 9 million/yr salaries while losing $ 40 million/yr is very bad for the sport.

 

[WC Handy*]

i respect your opinion, but in this case, i totally disagree.

If you're going to disagree how about you back it up with some evidence? The only contract the Blues gave out that you could argue contributed to the salary escalation is Pronger. Tkachuk, Weight, and MacInnis all signed contracts that were what they were worth at the time. And before you come at me about Tkachuk making $11M or Weight making $9M, neither player's contract averaged that. Tkachuk's contract averaged $9M ($700K more than what Phoenix was paying him) and Weight's contract averaged a hair over $8M (not much more than Pierre Turgeon got from the Stars the same offseason.

Bill Laurie didn't do anything to hurt the sport. In fact, the simple fact that he felt he need to spend $60M to win a Cup says plenty about how ruined the sport was before he ever bought into the league.

 

[Hawker14]

If you're going to disagree how about you back it up with some evidence? The only contract the Blues gave out that you could argue contributed to the salary escalation is Pronger. Tkachuk, Weight, and MacInnis all signed contracts that were what they were worth at the time. And before you come at me about Tkachuk making $11M or Weight making $9M, neither player's contract averaged that. Tkachuk's contract averaged $9M ($700K more than what Phoenix was paying him) and Weight's contract averaged a hair over $8M (not much more than Pierre Turgeon got from the Stars the same offseason.

Bill Laurie didn't do anything to hurt the sport. In fact, the simple fact that he felt he need to spend $60M to win a Cup says plenty about how ruined the sport was before he ever bought into the league.

you basically made my point for me. there is no justification for having those contracts on the books when a business is losing $ 40 million/year.

i can see as a fan of the team, you might be able to appreciate their spending, but for the league as a whole, it did alot more damage.

the fact is, they couldn't afford those contracts, and it was irresponsible to sign them/trade for them.

 

[Mess]

Bill Laurie didn't do anything to hurt the sport. In fact, the simple fact that he felt he need to spend $60M to win a Cup says plenty about how ruined the sport was before he ever bought into the league.

According to reports the Blues lost in excess of $20 mil which was one of the worst over spending of a budget by all 30 teams ..

Had they set their payroll at 40 mil and not 60 mil that would have corrected the problem ..

When they offered Pronger a $10 mil qualifying offer, they purposely intended to make their financial situation look as bad as possible in hopes that it would effect the new CBA outcome .. There is no other reason if you were already losing money before that transaction and you had intentions to sell the team that you would increase the debt of it ..

 

[WC Handy*]

you basically made my point for me. there is no justification for having those contracts on the books when a business is losing $ 40 million/year.

i can see as a fan of the team, you might be able to appreciate their spending, but for the league as a whole, it did alot more damage.

the fact is, they couldn't afford those contracts, and it was irresponsible to sign them/trade for them.

Not only have I have I not made your point, but you haven't made one.

Bill Laurie decided he needed to spend $60M on players to win a Cup and it was a risk that he was willing to take... a risk that had no effect on the small market teams because their signings didn't have an effect on the player market. They didn't overpay a player (a la Bobby Holik). Their signings were at prices that other teams at the time would have gladly paid.

 

[cgyfireman]

"all signed contracts that were what they were worth at the time."

Worth to "who" at the time??The big spenders??A lot of teams would never offer these guys that much money.It was bad business,just one of many poor decisions that let the Blues lose so much money and put them in the position they are today

 

[Dave is a killer]

Not only have I have I not made your point, but you haven't made one.

Bill Laurie decided he needed to spend $60M on players to win a Cup and it was a risk that he was willing to take... a risk that had no effect on the small market teams because their signings didn't have an effect on the player market. They didn't overpay a player (a la Bobby Holik). Their signings were at prices that other teams at the time would have gladly paid.

you see ... the one HUGE difference between Holik and any player Pleau/Laurie signed was that Holik has won not 1, not 2, but 3 Stanley Cups

 

[WC Handy*]

When they offered Pronger a $10 mil qualifying offer, they purposely intended to make their financial situation look as bad as possible in hopes that it would effect the new CBA outcome

Wow. This is dumb. Even for you.

The Blues offered Pronger a $10M qualifying offer to keep him on their team. Period.

Quit making **** up. It only makes you look worse than you normally do.

 

[WC Handy*]

"all signed contracts that were what they were worth at the time."

Worth to "who" at the time??The big spenders??A lot of teams would never offer these guys that much money.It was bad business,just one of many poor decisions that let the Blues lose so much money and put them in the position they are today

It's not Bill Laurie's fault that the player market is set by the big spenders.

 

[WC Handy*]

you see ... the one HUGE difference between Holik and any player Pleau/Laurie signed was that Holik has won not 1, not 2, but 3 Stanley Cups

Good point. The Blues should have given Mike Keane $9M when they signed him.

 

[norrisnick]

you see ... the one HUGE difference between Holik and any player Pleau/Laurie signed was that Holik has won not 1, not 2, but 3 Stanley Cups

Not quite. While Marty and the boys were sipping champagne out of Cup #3, Bobby was counting his $9M from the Rangers.

 

[Hawker14]

Not only have I have I not made your point, but you haven't made one.

Bill Laurie decided he needed to spend $60M on players to win a Cup and it was a risk that he was willing to take... a risk that had no effect on the small market teams because their signings didn't have an effect on the player market. They didn't overpay a player (a la Bobby Holik). Their signings were at prices that other teams at the time would have gladly paid.

please correct these if they are wrong:

the laurie's took over the team in '99 by assuming $ 96 million in savvis centre debt.

during their six year tenure, the debt has ballooned to $ 225 million, including $ 67 million still owing on the arena bonds (which will likely prevent the team from moving prior to bankruptcy).

so the laurie's, without investing what looks to be any of their own money in the franchise, have run up $ 129 million in additional debt during their operation of the team.

looks to me that finding an owner for the blues will be difficult if these numbers are indeed correct.

it's almost imcomprehensible that a team with the fan support that the blues have, could be in this much trouble. the blues could indeed be heading into bankruptcy protection in the future. saddling the franchise with that much debt leaves it's future up in the air.

that $ 60 million/year in salaries he was paying out may ultimately be the demise of the franchise. not exactly the type of ownership i'd want for my hometown team.

if however, laurie has/does pay off the debt he's accumulated, then i will stand corrected.

 

[LA Blue]

please correct these if they are wrong:

the laurie's took over the team in '99 by assuming $ 96 million in savvis centre debt.

during their six year tenure, the debt has ballooned to $ 225 million, including $ 67 million still owing on the arena bonds (which will likely prevent the team from moving prior to bankruptcy).

so the laurie's, without investing what looks to be any of their own money in the franchise, have run up $ 129 million in additional debt during their operation of the team.

looks to me that finding an owner for the blues will be difficult if these numbers are indeed correct.

it's almost imcomprehensible that a team with the fan support that the blues have, could be in this much trouble. the blues could indeed be heading into bankruptcy protection in the future. saddling the franchise with that much debt leaves it's future up in the air.

that $ 60 million/year in salaries he was paying out may ultimately be the demise of the franchise. not exactly the type of ownership i'd want for my hometown team.

if however, laurie has/does pay off the debt he's accumulated, then i will stand corrected.

I don't think that $225 million is any kind of outstanding debt the team has to "pay off". That number is the amount of money the Lauries have lost since purchasing the team (money they have already spent), averaging somewhere around 20mil a season. The Blues themselves are not a team in debt to anyone, unless you're talking about the $67 million that is still owed on the lease of the arena. When Laurie bought the team it was in debt besides the arena costs because of several deferred player contracts the team had still left to pay. This is not the case now. Whoever buys the Blues isn't going to have to pony up $225 million, though I'm sure the Lauries will be trying to recoup at least half of that loss through the sale of the team.

Matt