Blues on the market

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hecht

Registered User
Jul 6, 2002
1,107
0
Visit site
go kim johnsson said:
What can I say, I call it like I see it. Fans deserve better than to have their team make the playoffs 30 straight years, and only get to the conference finals twice, and never get to the finals. I like them more than I don't, but I don't consider myself a fan, however more times than not I find myself rooting for the Blues than I don't (playing one of Dallas, Detroit or Colorado every year does that)


At least St. Louis had a parade at some point in the past 22 years (unlike Philadelphia)
ummm..they made the finals 3 years straight...68-70
 

Hawker14

Registered User
Oct 27, 2004
3,084
0
LA Blue said:
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

i just have this feeling, after reading the statements by the blues president, that the financial situation of the team is indeed in terrible shape.

presuming the team's only debt is the $ 67 million in arena bonds, the service charge on them has been reported to jump to $7-8 million/year this year. for full control of the revenues of a 21,000 seat arena ( http://www.savviscenter.net/content/press.html ) in a city of 2.5 million, this is still a relatively good deal (actually it's a great deal if the arena is full like it's been).

the ticket tax amounts to $4-5 million per season. with the new cba a realistic payroll would be $ 29 million (the luxury tax threshold as reported by the globe and mail) and adding $ 15 million for administration, marketing, and scouting ... the team expenses would be around $ 55-57 million/year.

in '03-'04 the nhl league revenues were $ 2.1 billion, and it's not unrealistic to expect league revenues to return to this level after a few seasons. this is an average of $ 70 million per team.

st.louis, as a mid market city, could easily expect profits in the neighbourhood of $ 13-15 million/year.

i know these numbers are very arbitrary, but in just about everyone's opinion i've talked to, with a $ 67 million debt, the Blues will be a profitable franchise.

what concerns me is, with what i predict will be the forthcoming knowledge of massive debt for the blues, the laurie's will walk away and basically bankrupt the franchise.

it will cost them virtually nothing, and leave the city/bondholders/banks on the hook.

i hope i'm wrong, but i just can't understand an owner jumping ship at this time if he is actually underwriting the losses.
 

Dave is a killer

Dave's a Mess
Oct 17, 2002
26,507
18
Cumming GA
norrisnick said:
Not quite. While Marty and the boys were sipping champagne out of Cup #3, Bobby was counting his $9M from the Rangers.

that's still two more than any Blues player in history, while being a member of the Blues
 

Checker*

Guest
Joe_Strummer said:
that's still two more than any Blues player in history, while being a member of the Blues

If your point is that no Blue had ever won a Stanley Cup, I can name a few starting with Al MacInnis.

If, however, your point was just to rub salt in the wound of the fact that the Blues have never won a Stanley Cup, then you're just a jackoff.
 

WC Handy*

Guest
hawker14 said:
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.

None of this has any relevence to your claim that Laurie's decisions were bad for small and mid market teams. They were bad for one team and one team only.
 

WC Handy*

Guest
Joe_Strummer said:
that's still two more than any Blues player in history, while being a member of the Blues

And how many has Holik won as a Ranger?

That's what I thought.
 

SneakerPimp82

Registered User
Apr 5, 2003
2,072
300
Saint Louis, MO
The Messenger said:
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 ..

So you're saying no other team in the league would've offered Pronger, arguably the best d-man in the league, an offer at 10 million dollars? Come on, you know if the Blues didn't they'd have lost him to another team.
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,858
8,112
I wonder if the decline in value of the shares of Savvis Communications are part of the reported net losses since Bill Laurie took over. Not that it would be a lot - I think about $6 million, but if you count that $6 million, and you count a few other things here and there, ... suddenly you're painting a picture where a $100 million loss turns into $225 million.

There's no doubt that the team was losing money. And there's also no argument that the team spent more than it generated in revenues. But had the franchise operated with the goal of staying in the black and fan support dropped b/c the Blues went 23-46-13 over the last 6 years, we'd hear about how St. Louis doesn't support hockey and doesn't deserve a franchise when the NHL starts up again.

Instead, the owners made a committment to winning the Cup and put money into the team knowing that they'd lose money if the effort failed, and now they should have known better than to spend more than they took in. Mike Illitch did the same thing in Detroit the last 2 seasons, where the Red Wings lost money b/c they spent $70+ million on the payroll trying to win another Cup, and I guess that's OK because they already had 3 since 1997. I certainly haven't heard anyone cracking back on Detroit for spending freely on payroll.

So...I guess the moral we're all supposed to learn is this: if you've won the Cup, feel free to spend until you've given every piece of pocket lint trying to win the Cup again. If you haven't won the Cup, then learn to live within your means and quit trying to reach for something you know you can't have.
 

Street Hawk

Registered User
Feb 18, 2003
5,348
19
Visit site
Accept the Risk.....

Irish Blues said:
Instead, the owners made a committment to winning the Cup and put money into the team knowing that they'd lose money if the effort failed, and now they should have known better than to spend more than they took in. Mike Illitch did the same thing in Detroit the last 2 seasons, where the Red Wings lost money b/c they spent $70+ million on the payroll trying to win another Cup, and I guess that's OK because they already had 3 since 1997. I certainly haven't heard anyone cracking back on Detroit for spending freely on payroll.

So...I guess the moral we're all supposed to learn is this: if you've won the Cup, feel free to spend until you've given every piece of pocket lint trying to win the Cup again. If you haven't won the Cup, then learn to live within your means and quit trying to reach for something you know you can't have.

The Blues, through their OWN decision decided to spend $60 million a year on salaries, knowing that their revenues couldn't cover all of their operating expenses. As a NON Blues fan, but a fan of hockey in general, I want all teams to operate fiscally responsibly. You shouldn't shell out more for contracts than you can afford. If you do, then you assume full risk if the team does not perform well enough in the playoffs to generate the additional revenue needed to cover their salaries. Don't come out after the fact and say the team lost $60 million over the past 2 years. It was your own decisions that lead to a good chunk of that loss. If the reason he was selling was because of $20 million in servicing debt on the building then fine, it's legitimate reason because both the Rams and Cardinals got deals with the City and the Blues, as the other major pro sports team in the city, should be entitled to the same treatment, just like the Pens in Pittsburgh after the Pirates and Steelers got their new digs.

Illitch spent like crazy the past 2 years and has paid for it. Laurie and the Blues spent wildly over the past few years and has paid for it. If you spent more than you can afford, you suffer the consequences. If one of us maxxed out our VISA, we'd get hit with those outrageous 18% interest charges. But, it would have been our own decision to buy more than what we make.
 

AXN

Registered User
Feb 10, 2004
1,451
0
I don't know why they signed Weight if they thought they are going to lose money or losing money. Blues had one of the top salaries in the NHL the last five or six years and did nothing. Someone will buy the blues. I am pretty sure there would not be a problem.
 

barnburner

Registered User
Apr 23, 2004
567
0
I have nothing in the way of evidence to support this theory, but my guess is that, had Kroenke not bought an nhl franchise - Laurie probably would not have forced Pleau to abandon his organizational plan to build from within, and sent
the payroll skyward. From the rumours we hear, losing the brother-in-law derby did not sit well with Bill. I have been of the opinion that Laurie's meddling was the primary reason for the somewhat confusing direction of the team the last couple of years. Patience was not his longsuit.
That said - he stablized the franchise when he bought the team, from all reports from players and employees - treated everyone with class, slashed ticket prices and kept them down to where virtually anyone could afford to go to some games, and ok'd making some very positive changes in the building that served to change what was originally a very dull, generic building into more of a hockey arena.
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,858
8,112
barnburner said:
That said - he stablized the franchise when he bought the team, from all reports from players and employees - treated everyone with class, slashed ticket prices and kept them down to where virtually anyone could afford to go to some games, and ok'd making some very positive changes in the building that served to change what was originally a very dull, generic building into more of a hockey arena.

He should have brought back the "World's Biggest Bluenote" to help boost revenues.

















:biglaugh:
 

LA Blue

Registered User
Sep 24, 2003
197
0
Los Angeles
Visit site
hawker14 said:
what concerns me is, with what i predict will be the forthcoming knowledge of massive debt for the blues, the laurie's will walk away and basically bankrupt the franchise.

it will cost them virtually nothing, and leave the city/bondholders/banks on the hook.

i hope i'm wrong, but i just can't understand an owner jumping ship at this time if he is actually underwriting the losses.

Like I said before, the $225 million is just the amount of money the Lauries have lost over the 6 years they've owned the Blues. It's not an outstanding debt. The only financial commitment any new owner would be inheriting is the money still owed for the lease of the arena (67 mil) and the current players under contract (anywhere between 33-40mil depending on the new CBA). All that debt will do is drag down the sale price of the team. So where this huge debt you're predicting wil be revealed to us is going to come from is still rather confusing to me.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Hecht said:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson
What can I say, I call it like I see it. Fans deserve better than to have their team make the playoffs 30 straight years, and only get to the conference finals twice, and never get to the finals. I like them more than I don't, but I don't consider myself a fan, however more times than not I find myself rooting for the Blues than I don't (playing one of Dallas, Detroit or Colorado every year does that)


At least St. Louis had a parade at some point in the past 22 years (unlike Philadelphia)
ummm..they made the finals 3 years straight...68-70

OK. Howabout "never get to see them actually win a game in the finals" - 0-12 ouch. Of course, they did make the cup finals as an expansion club - of course the whole western conference was expansion teams and someone had to make the cup finals as fodder for the "Original 6".
 

barnburner

Registered User
Apr 23, 2004
567
0
kdb209 said:
OK. Howabout "never get to see them actually win a game in the finals" - 0-12 ouch. Of course, they did make the cup finals as an expansion club - of course the whole western conference was expansion teams and someone had to make the cup finals as fodder for the "Original 6".

The amazing thing of the first two Cup finals, was that even tho the Canadians swept the Blues both years - this expansion team of rookies and has been stars made the powerhouse Habs work their butts off to win each game. My memory is not what it once was, but I think that most, if not every game was decided by one goal, including a few overtimes. Glenn Hall put on what may have been the greatest exhibition of goaltending for a series that I have ever seen.
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,662
37,457
barnburner said:
The amazing thing of the first two Cup finals, was that even tho the Canadians swept the Blues both years - this expansion team of rookies and has been stars made the powerhouse Habs work their butts off to win each game. My memory is not what it once was, but I think that most, if not every game was decided by one goal, including a few overtimes. Glenn Hall put on what may have been the greatest exhibition of goaltending for a series that I have ever seen.


May 5 St. Louis Blues 2 3 at Montreal Canadiens 00:01:41 OT
May 7 St. Louis Blues 0 1 at Montreal Canadiens
May 9 Montreal Canadiens 4 3 at St. Louis Blues 00:01:13 OT
May 11 Montreal Canadiens 3 2 at St. Louis Blues

Apr 27 St. Louis Blues 1 3 at Montreal Canadiens
Apr 29 St. Louis Blues 1 3 at Montreal Canadiens
May 1 Montreal Canadiens 4 0 at St. Louis Blues
May 4 Montreal Canadiens 2 1 at St. Louis Blues

May 3 Boston Bruins 6 1 at St. Louis Blues
May 5 Boston Bruins 6 2 at St. Louis Blues
May 7 St. Louis Blues 1 4 at Boston Bruins
May 10 St. Louis Blues 3 4 at Boston Bruins 00:00:40 OT

Didn't do too bad against the Habs.
 

barnburner

Registered User
Apr 23, 2004
567
0
go kim johnsson said:
May 5 St. Louis Blues 2 3 at Montreal Canadiens 00:01:41 OT
May 7 St. Louis Blues 0 1 at Montreal Canadiens
May 9 Montreal Canadiens 4 3 at St. Louis Blues 00:01:13 OT
May 11 Montreal Canadiens 3 2 at St. Louis Blues

Apr 27 St. Louis Blues 1 3 at Montreal Canadiens
Apr 29 St. Louis Blues 1 3 at Montreal Canadiens
May 1 Montreal Canadiens 4 0 at St. Louis Blues
May 4 Montreal Canadiens 2 1 at St. Louis Blues

May 3 Boston Bruins 6 1 at St. Louis Blues
May 5 Boston Bruins 6 2 at St. Louis Blues
May 7 St. Louis Blues 1 4 at Boston Bruins
May 10 St. Louis Blues 3 4 at Boston Bruins 00:00:40 OT

Didn't do too bad against the Habs.


Especially considering that during the regular season, we were just helpless
against them. Those Montreal teams were really somthing to watch.
 

topshelf331

Registered User
May 8, 2003
2,381
151
Stl
Visit site
LA Blue said:
Like I said before, the $225 million is just the amount of money the Lauries have lost over the 6 years they've owned the Blues. It's not an outstanding debt. The only financial commitment any new owner would be inheriting is the money still owed for the lease of the arena (67 mil) and the current players under contract (anywhere between 33-40mil depending on the new CBA). All that debt will do is drag down the sale price of the team. So where this huge debt you're predicting wil be revealed to us is going to come from is still rather confusing to me.



Actually the $225 million in losses was since 1994 , 5 years before the lauries. So it was over the course of 11 years. And i Bleive the lauries took on $100 milllion in debt when they bought the team. So it was $125 million ove the 6 seasons, which is still nothing to sneeze at.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=128173&hubName=nhl
 

Plager05

Registered User
Mar 17, 2002
2,483
0
Sewers
Visit site
IMO
Good riddance. Wal-Martocrats don't belong in a working town like St.Louis anyway.
He probably would've started to run the Blues like a Wal-Mart anyway.

Basketball
He already owns a pro-team, the Missouri Tigers. And he did name the arena after his daughter, that's why they changed the name so quick after she got busted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->