Feel The Chill - Official [CHL] St. Charles Chill thread

[mfrerkes]

The Chill looks like it could go into deep freeze at any moment.

Don't count on it. Their numbers are awful -- and under normal circumstances a team like this would fold quickly -- but this is not a normal circumstance. The Missouri Mavericks own the Chill. They have doubled down on the CHL, so I'd bet they'll eat those big losses for the entire season before quietly pulling the plug over the summer.

The Mavericks are probably pulling in enough coin to keep this hapless affair going through March. I suspect (and hope) that we'll see significant franchise movement during the upcoming off-season. Maybe Rapid City and Allen can find a legal way to break free. Wichita may decide that pulling Tulsa's wagon is too much work. Brampton will have taken on water as well, so that franchise could be huge question mark. Does anyone think Denver will come back for another round of this?

The CHL will try to keep the shaky alliances together next summer, but they're fighting an uphill battle. I don't expect any real "franchise fireworks" in this league until after the last regular season game is played. That includes the Chill, who are lucky enough to have the Mavericks as their sugar daddy.

 

[mk80]

Yeah, what I meant to say was there at least needs to be some type of successful sport entity in there. Not just random events like graduations, concerts, etc.

Well I'm sure when Lindenwood buys it they will still have concerts and things (they'd be foolish not too with the revenue it brings in) and the arena wouldn't be at full capacity for the hockey games but I'd say most of the lower bowl could be filled. The only thing that might keep concerts and shows out is Lindenwood's dry campus policy so when they buy it I'm sure they will stop Alcohol sales there. But who knows, they are building a new mixed gender dorm along with the shopping center across 94 from campus. The dorm will be the first mixed gender dorm for LU.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

Don't count on it. Their numbers are awful -- and under normal circumstances a team like this would fold quickly -- but this is not a normal circumstance. The Missouri Mavericks own the Chill. They have doubled down on the CHL, so I'd bet they'll eat those big losses for the entire season before quietly pulling the plug over the summer.

The Mavericks are probably pulling in enough coin to keep this hapless affair going through March. I suspect (and hope) that we'll see significant franchise movement during the upcoming off-season. Maybe Rapid City and Allen can find a legal way to break free. Wichita may decide that pulling Tulsa's wagon is too much work. Brampton will have taken on water as well, so that franchise could be huge question mark. Does anyone think Denver will come back for another round of this?

The CHL will try to keep the shaky alliances together next summer, but they're fighting an uphill battle. I don't expect any real "franchise fireworks" in this league until after the last regular season game is played. That includes the Chill, who are lucky enough to have the Mavericks as their sugar daddy.

I did not know that the Chill was owned by another team. Reminds me of the IHL when the Frankes of Fort Wayne were propping up both Flint and Bloomington.

When Global was bought out of the ownership of the league, I assumed that the obstacles to moving out of the league would have disappeared as well. The ECHL has already been willing to take in Allen and Rapid City, and I'd see no reason why Tulsa (I'm not aware of the troubles which you implied that this franchise was having-I'll take your word on this), Missouri and Wichita wouldn't be welcomed. Long term survival for Brampton, St. Charles , Denver, Arizona and Quad City all seem highly unlikely-at least at the AA level.

Evansville and Fort Wayne made the jump. Allen and Rapid City did as well and were only thwarted by legal maneuvers. I can't imagine that the ownership of Allen and Rapid City would have been on board for the purchase of the league from Global if the status quo of forbidding franchise movement to another league was maintained. I could be wrong, but I think that the purchase of the league from Global was probably done to insure the long term health of the league's viable franchises. The healthy franchises would seem to be obligated to move on from the failed CHL/Global model and a move to the ECHL for these franchises would appear to be the most viable option. We shall see this off season if I'm right or wrong.

 

[mfrerkes]

I did not know that the Chill was owned by another team. Reminds me of the IHL when the Frankes of Fort Wayne were propping up both Flint and Bloomington.

You pretty much nailed it. Jim Treliving, who was the CHL's sole owner up until recently, has been moving all kinds of resources to prop up his dying league. He took over the Mallards last fall when yet another ownership group bailed over the summer. He likely pushed Missouri and Wichita to take over control of two teams; Saint Charles and Tulsa. The expansion move into Brampton just reeks of desperation. It's a Hail Mary attempt at keeping the numbers game up in a rapidly disintegrating league.

When Global was bought out of the ownership of the league, I assumed that the obstacles to moving out of the league would have disappeared as well. The ECHL has already been willing to take in Allen and Rapid City, and I'd see no reason why Tulsa (I'm not aware of the troubles which you implied that this franchise was having-I'll take your word on this), Missouri and Wichita wouldn't be welcomed. Long term survival for Brampton, St. Charles , Denver, Arizona and Quad City all seem highly unlikely-at least at the AA level.

Wichita's acquisition of Tulsa happened very quietly over the summer. You don't have to take my word about the precarious nature of Tulsa. The Wichita Business Journal reported that the Thunder bought the team to "revitalize" the Oilers, and because the Oilers were reportedly looking to jump ship.

http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/morning_call/2013/07/tulsa-oilers-purchase-could-help.html

That same publication earlier quoted the Thunder's owner as stating there were substantial financial concerns in Tulsa, and that the Oilers seemed poised to leave the CHL. Wichita essentially bought the team to save the existence of the CHL:

http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/.../28/stevens-see-purchase-of-tulsa-oilers.html

I know a Tulsa fan on another forum who stated their opening night attendance was drastically inflated. He said actual "butts in the seats" were a few thousand lower than the published figure. Tulsa isn't the financial anchor everybody thinks it is. That certainly spells even more trouble for the CHL's ability to keep moving along.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

You pretty much nailed it. Jim Treliving, who was the CHL's sole owner up until recently, has been moving all kinds of resources to prop up his dying league. He took over the Mallards last fall when yet another ownership group bailed over the summer. He likely pushed Missouri and Wichita to take over control of two teams; Saint Charles and Tulsa. The expansion move into Brampton just reeks of desperation. It's a Hail Mary attempt at keeping the numbers game up in a rapidly disintegrating league.



Wichita's acquisition of Tulsa happened very quietly over the summer. You don't have to take my word about the precarious nature of Tulsa. The Wichita Business Journal reported that the Thunder bought the team to "revitalize" the Oilers, and because the Oilers were reportedly looking to jump ship.

http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/morning_call/2013/07/tulsa-oilers-purchase-could-help.html

That same publication earlier quoted the Thunder's owner as stating there were substantial financial concerns in Tulsa, and that the Oilers seemed poised to leave the CHL. Wichita essentially bought the team to save the existence of the CHL:

http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/.../28/stevens-see-purchase-of-tulsa-oilers.html

I know a Tulsa fan on another forum who stated their opening night attendance was drastically inflated. He said actual "butts in the seats" were a few thousand lower than the published figure. Tulsa isn't the financial anchor everybody thinks it is. That certainly spells even more trouble for the CHL's ability to keep moving along.

Thanks for the links. So, Tulsa is on the phony baloney attendance count as well. So many announced attendance numbers (at all levels) mean absolutely nothing. Last night, I was at a Columbus Blue Jackets game which was probably not even half full (9000 if it was) and the announced crowd was 13k+. I've learned that many announced attendance numbers are silly fictions and until I've been to a building and seen a game or had a reliable source confirm that the numbers are reasonably accurate, I don't put much stock in announced numbers.

Do you know if Tulsa was considering bolting to the SPHL or junior? I don't recall that franchise ever being in the "jump to the ECHL" mix.

Apparently there are only four viable CHL teams: Wichita, Missouri, Allen and Rapid City. Quad City, St. Charles and Tulsa are being propped up by absentee ownerships. Arizona, Denver, and Brampton aren't drawing anywhere near what they need to survive and two of them (AZ and Brampton) are in absurdly remote locations for AA hockey economics. So, the questions are (please correct me if I'm wrong): 1) Can the CHL legally prevent the 4 viable teams from jumping to the ECHL? 2) How long will the "subsidized" teams' owners accept deep losses? 3) Is Jim Treliving willing to underwrite the league indefinitely with his substantial net worth?

http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celebrity-business/men/jim-treliving-net-worth/

Who, other than Treliving, owns the CHL now? I had assumed that the other owners all were essentially equal partners in owing the league. That appears to have been a very poor assumption.

Thanks in advance for any further info.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

A trip down memory lane for those who remember the jokester/frauds that the Frankes put in place to own the Dayton Gems and prop up the rapidly failing IHL. These bozos didn't last until Thanksgiving of season 1.

TROTWOOD – While the future of the International Hockey League’s Dayton Gems seems secure, the same can’t be said for team president Richard Bruner.

“It appears the league wants me out,” Bruner said Friday, Nov. 27. “At this stage, I realize I’m probably going to lose my investment.”

http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/n...tly-secure-but-team-president-fears--1/nM62p/

The following was public info PRIOR to the Frankes getting Bruner and Yerrick an IHL franchise to "run":

The day before opening his second store, he asked me and another manager (who also was naive to his ways) to help him out by cashing a couple checks. He stated that a loan was going to be deposited in the business account in a day or two and that these checks would go through then. We didn't think any big deal so the co-manager and I went out with these checks to get cash so we could go get some supplies.

Long story short, while we were out he put a stop payment on these checks. Now the check cashing establishments are after me and the other manager. We have asked him numerous times when he was going to take care of these checks and he kept telling us that there was nothing that the check establishments could do to me and other manager. "The checks are business checks, they will come after me and Ryan" is what he told me.
Its been 3 months and I just filed claim with local authorities.

http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/richa...e-very-cautious-he-is-slick-convincing-417923


In the leopard doesn't change his spots category (dated 8/29/13):

Richard Bruner and Ryan Yerrick signed a lease purchase agreement. Access for this home was granted to them immediately. Three checks were written by Mr, Bruner and Ryan Yerrick for the down payment, first months payment and deposit. Each check bounced. The information that was given for the purchase agreement was false. They both agreed that they would take their entire tax returns and applie those monitary means to make amends for the lack of funds.

Soon there after Richard and Ryan both would not return phone calls. We Arrived at the home to give them a letter of eviction, they would not open the door. They would not return phone calls. They changed their phone numbers. We arrived at the property to inspect the home to find they had vacated the home after 4 months. We changed the locks and came back two days latter to find they had broken into the home to take the appliances that were installed in the home. Grate sales individuals but spoken with nothing but lies.

http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/richa...-false-information-fort-wayne-indiana-1080206


Perhaps the CHL could use a couple of experienced hockey owners as front men for one of their troublesome franchises

 

[mfrerkes]

Do you know if Tulsa was considering bolting to the SPHL or junior? I don't recall that franchise ever being in the "jump to the ECHL" mix.

The only rumors I had heard regarding Tulsa's likely league change was the NAHL. Makes sense. There are numerous NAHL teams in neighboring Texas and Kansas, including some ex-CHL markets that played Tulsa during the league's Glory Years.

So, the questions are (please correct me if I'm wrong): 1) Can the CHL legally prevent the 4 viable teams from jumping to the ECHL? 2) How long will the "subsidized" teams' owners accept deep losses? 3) Is Jim Treliving willing to underwrite the league indefinitely with his substantial net worth?

1) It would appear as long as the CHL can maintain a contract-specified minimum number of league members, those teams like RC are bound by their agreement. What that specified minimum actually is continues to be the source of much speculation. I think it is ten teams, but it shockingly could be even lower than that.

2) You're asking the wrong guy. Ask the poor (or should I say RICH) saps who are losing decades of retirement money trying to keep this wounded duck in the air.

3) Speculation on my part, but possibly. This guy has shown a cult-like dedication to keep the CHL going regardless of how chintzy the whole production might become. That tells me he means it. At least the Frankes had the graciousness to step aside when Flint and Port Huron fled the IHL. I think Treliving possesses much more hubris, sorry to say.

Who, other than Treliving, owns the CHL now? I had assumed that the other owners all were essentially equal partners in owing the league. That appears to have been a very poor assumption.

Thanks in advance for any further info.

Treliving used to own the CHL lock, stock, and barrel. That just changed over the summer.

The league is now owned by the member teams in equal shares of 10%. As a result, Treliving only has a 10% stake in the league. Since Tulsa/Wichita and Missouri/Saint Charles are dual-ownership situations, each group has a 20% stake in the CHL.

 

[JeffNYI]

A trip down memory lane for those who remember the jokester/frauds that the Frankes put in place to own the Dayton Gems and prop up the rapidly failing IHL. These bozos didn't last until Thanksgiving of season 1.

Dude. You don't even know.

I had the pleasure of discovering and going through all of Rich and Ryan's data from their time in charge of the team..

MOD

 

[Cyclones Rock]

.


Treliving used to own the CHL lock, stock, and barrel. That just changed over the summer.

The league is now owned by the member teams in equal shares of 10%. As a result, Treliving only has a 10% stake in the league. Since Tulsa/Wichita and Missouri/Saint Charles are dual-ownership situations, each group has a 20% stake in the CHL.

First, thanks for all of your information.

Now, wouldn't Treliving's sale of the league to league members almost certainly open the door to the demise of the league? If Wichita and Missouri's ownership decide to pursue the ECHL, the each of these ownership's 20% stakes combined with the 10% interests of the Allen and RC ownerships would-on the surface, anyway-give these ownerships the leverage needed to ultimately leave the league.

Why would someone purported to be as wealthy as Treliving is sell off the league-especially to a few organizations (RC and Allen) which are only still in the league due to legal maneuvers-if he were hell bent on its continuation. The sale of the parts couldn't have generated any more than a couple $million or so and Treliving's worth is supposedly in the $ half a billion neighborhood. The sale wouldn't have appeared to have been necessary financially and certainly opened the box, at the least, to the dissolution of the CHL via defection of the four viable franchises to the ECHL.

I'm not seeing the full picture of Treliving's motivation to sell. The only reasonable explanation to me is that the net worth figure that I found on him is completely bogus and he's not worth huge money. Help me see it if you can.

 

[LadyStanley]

MOD WARNING: Be very careful when posting derogatory comments about people as it might be considered slander or libel.

If at all possible provide links to news articles describing the situation.

 

[mfrerkes]

First, thanks for all of your information.

You're more than welcome. It's actually kind of fun discussing this stuff with somebody who is interested, knowledgeable, and not personally invested in a particular outcome with the CHL.

Now, wouldn't Treliving's sale of the league to league members almost certainly open the door to the demise of the league? If Wichita and Missouri's ownership decide to pursue the ECHL, the each of these ownership's 20% stakes combined with the 10% interests of the Allen and RC ownerships would-on the surface, anyway-give these ownerships the leverage needed to ultimately leave the league.

I was also puzzled by that arrangement when it was announced. The only thing I can come up with is this:

It was a bone Treliving threw to Allen and Rapid City as part of their continued membership in the CHL. It's quite possible those two teams had some kind of leverage in the discussions, and this is what they were able to get from it. The reason why Treliving would be agreeable is because he still holds most of the cards under this deal. It seems obvious that Missouri and Wichita are firmly in his camp. Since they both own two teams apiece, and Treliving owns another one, they already have a combined 50% stake in decision-making.

If you add in the possibility that Denver, Arizona, and Brampton are likely to go along with that "50% Crowd" that puts RC and Allen in the vast minority. While I don't know every detail of the new league ownership, it's feasible that each partner (i.e. team owner) would have to sell their stake (i.e. franchise) to a buyer deemed suitable by the other remaining partners before leaving the CHL.

This would essentially place the burden of finding new ownership in a new market on the team seeking to leave the CHL. Let's say (hypothetically) the Rush eventually find a prospective buyer in Omaha, Nebraska. They could sell the Rush's CHL license to that group, pending approval by the other 9 voting members, and leave the league free and clear.

With Treliving's camp representing 80% of the voting bloc, he could make sure the Rush were leaving the CHL in a position to continue with viable ownership for all ten teams. Again, this is just guess at how things might work now, but I'm pretty sure Treliving built some fail-safe switch into the whole arrangement. He's not just going to give a lucrative "Get Out of Jail Free" card to Allen or Rapid City.

Why would someone purported to be as wealthy as Treliving is sell off the league-especially to a few organizations (RC and Allen) which are only still in the league due to legal maneuvers-if he were hell bent on its continuation. The sale of the parts couldn't have generated any more than a couple $million or so and Treliving's worth is supposedly in the $ half a billion neighborhood. The sale wouldn't have appeared to have been necessary financially and certainly opened the box, at the least, to the dissolution of the CHL via defection of the four viable franchises to the ECHL.

There's a huge difference between net worth and liquid assets. I'm not sure what ratio of Treliving's wealth falls on the "liquid assets" side of the ledger. Not everyone with substantial wealth on paper is necessarily able to direct that wealth into other ventures at the drop of a hat. Also, nobody knows with any certainty how much personal wealth Treliving would seek to allocate in keeping his league afloat.

I'm not seeing the full picture of Treliving's motivation to sell. The only reasonable explanation to me is that the net worth figure that I found on him is completely bogus and he's not worth huge money. Help me see it if you can.

I really doubt Treliving's wealth is grossly exaggerated. But again, he might not be in a position to quickly free up large amounts of that wealth to direct elsewhere in his business portfolio. It's impossible to know what is in his private bank account, and what impulses are active in his thoughts.

Bottom Line: He seems committed to keeping the CHL afloat as long as possible, is in a financial position to have a fighting chance, and knows how to play his cards to maximum benefit. That's why I'm still unconvinced this will be the last season for CHL hockey.

 

[mk80]

I think the leverage in any attempt by Allen and RC to leave again lies with Missouri and Witchita. If those groups decide to make a bid to the ECHL then the league might see itself dissolved. And I'm sure the Mavericks and Thunder owners will grow tired of throwing money down the drain keeping the Chill and Oilers afloat.

I believe the minimum team requirement is 10 since the CHL has desperately tried to keep from falling below that number.

 

[intangible]

As expected, ticket prices drop. Just released:

TICKETS START AT $5!!!
The team is unveiling a new pricing structure in which tickets start as low as five dollars. All upper level seating (Bronze level) for the remainder of the season will be general admission and only five dollars per ticket. (seating chart)
The Chill has also simplified their pricing structure in the lower bowl to two price levels. The first seven rows including glass seats and the center ice sections (Diamond level) are just $20 per ticket and rows eight and above (Platinum level) are $15.
Group tickets with 12 or more people in the Lower level start as low as $10. To order group tickets or for questions call the Chill front office at (636) 724-SHOT (7468).

Much better, but is the damage already done?

 

[mk80]

This certainly can't hurt their chances (other than bringing in less money off of admission), but we are not going to see a huge flood of people pouring into the Family Arena just because of this. But I'm sure a few extra people will make it out now that the prices are lowered.

 

[mfrerkes]

As expected, ticket prices drop. Just released:
Much better, but is the damage already done?

Ironically, this could increase attendance but damage their finances even more. With such a huge price drop, they now have to sell a massive number of tickets just to get the same level of income they were receiving in the previous weeks...

If you sell 500 "A" tickets at $20 apiece and 500 "B" tickets at $15 apiece, your gross income is $17,500. If you sell 800 "A" tickets at $12 apiece and 800 "B" tickets at $9 apiece, your gross income is $16,800.

So, while your ticket sales increased by 60%, your gross income decreased by $700 -- 4% lower than when you had less people buying higher-priced tickets. This is the peril for the Chill. If they don't attract significantly more fans with this move, it could actually make a bad situation worse.

As far as I know, the Chill don't get concession or parking revenue from Family Arena. Their ability to make up any revenue deficits from ticket sales are limited almost entirely to team merchandise.

 

[intangible]

Interesting. Though I do wonder if there's some recourse for them to be able to get a percentage of concessions. By decreasing ticket sales they might be taking a loss on the revenue, hurting their own sales but increasing concessions sales.

Now, if they DO have a deal where they have to pay for empty seats, then that could affect their cost per game. If they've increased ticket sales 60% but decreased their empty seat cost by 60%, the net revenue might be higher than otherwise.

 

[mk80]

While I doubt this will be enough to save the franchise, I will say we have to give the organization for listening to the fans who have been asking for the tickets and concessions lowered. They lowered what they could having no control over tickets but I like that they are trying to respond to their fans/ complaints.

 

[mfrerkes]

Interesting. Though I do wonder if there's some recourse for them to be able to get a percentage of concessions. By decreasing ticket sales they might be taking a loss on the revenue, hurting their own sales but increasing concessions sales.

Now, if they DO have a deal where they have to pay for empty seats, then that could affect their cost per game. If they've increased ticket sales 60% but decreased their empty seat cost by 60%, the net revenue might be higher than otherwise.

I don't know what the lease deal stipulates about empty seats. Somebody on another forum said the Otters paid roughly 50 cents for every empty seat. Even if the Chill increased attendance by 1000 fans per game (not likely, IMO) they'd only erase $500 per game off their lease obligations. That's not a significant decrease, especially if they're losing that much, or more, on reduced income from selling cheaper tickets.

As far as concessions go, I doubt the Chill get to touch any portion of that. The arena uses that money -- and parking fees -- to supplement their own revenue streams. It seems the Chill will need a massive uptick in attendance to make their ticket sales financially worthwhile. I don't think they're going to accomplish that during this time of the hockey season. November-December has historically been the low point for attendance.

 

[JungleJON]

Well lowering your prices not even into the first month of the season says a lot. Don't think that the Missouri owners thought that it was going to be as bad as it is. How long does anyone think they can keep this going? They must make some money on the Mavericks, but seem to be throwing it away on the Chill. Stupid business move.

 

[mfrerkes]

Well lowering your prices not even into the first month of the season says a lot. Don't think that the Missouri owners thought that it was going to be as bad as it is. How long does anyone think they can keep this going? They must make some money on the Mavericks, but seem to be throwing it away on the Chill. Stupid business move.

That's why I think the Chill should make it through the entire season without folding. However, I'm not very optimistic Missouri would choose to bring them back next fall. Like you said, Saint Charles has to be a considerable drag on their overall financial situation.

Brampton and Denver are question marks as well. The Cutthroats allegedly have somebody with deep pockets running the team, but I question why anybody would choose to waste big bucks in a market where the NHL will always be front and center. Brampton has a better chance of making a return appearance in 2014-15, but I wouldn't bet too heavily on that either.

 

[JeffNYI]

I don't think the Mavericks intended on owning and operating the Chill.

I think they were basically forced into the situation for the good of the league.

 

[mfrerkes]

I don't think the Mavericks intended on owning and operating the Chill.

I think they were basically forced into the situation for the good of the league.

When Hart couldn't find an owner for the Laredo Bucks' franchise (which is what the Chill is) I'm pretty sure the league told Missouri they'd need to step in and make this happen. Like you say, it was a reluctant but necessary decision to keep the CHL going another season.

I don't think this new pricing scheme is going to change the economics very much. The Chill are going to lose big bucks, and I have to wonder if this will be an epiphany for the Mavericks' prerogative to remain in the CHL much longer.

 

[jayme2017]

That's why I think the Chill should make it through the entire season without folding. However, I'm not very optimistic Missouri would choose to bring them back next fall. Like you said, Saint Charles has to be a considerable drag on their overall financial situation.

Brampton and Denver are question marks as well. The Cutthroats allegedly have somebody with deep pockets running the team, but I question why anybody would choose to waste big bucks in a market where the NHL will always be front and center. Brampton has a better chance of making a return appearance in 2014-15, but I wouldn't bet too heavily on that either.

The city of Brampton needs this team to work and last if the team moves or folds that could be the end of the rink.

 

[CrazyEddie20]

The city of Brampton needs this team to work...

Too late for that!

 

[jayme2017]

Too late for that!

Well they are about to lose there lacrosse team and if the Chl team is gone then the arena would be torn down more then likely.