Vegas purchases AHL San Antonio

[JMCx4]

The NHL team just experienced a huge financial windfall in winning the Cup. Look at the season ticket situation for a more tangible sign. The financial burden of owning the AHL team or need for defraying some additional costs may not look as onerous. The ownership group has demonstrated a willingness to spend on things like the new practice facility. So, yes I think it’s reasonable to suppose their decision matrix around the AHL options may have broadened.

The Blues are an organization that has 20 people in their Executive Front Office, including 13 Vice President titles. They have two former players (Brett Hull & Bobby Plager) on the payroll as "Blues Ambassadors." The rest of their Front Office staff list (Execs, Hockey Ops, Training, Medical, Broadcast/Media, Corporate Relations, Event staff, et.al.) is so long my hand got tired scrolling through it. Don't immediately assume that their "huge financial windfall" is not spoken for, nor especially that owning an AHL franchise has moved up their priority list of annual expenditures..

 

[Agalloch]

Maybe, but which franchise they gonna buy? Springfield? Levin owns the Wolves as a personal passion and has significant money, so much that he had been mentioned in rumours as NHL team purchaser several times over the years. Minnesota gonna sell?

Problem is with all these rumours being put out there is this ain't Europe where teams go up and down as part of relegation. Each league is a closed league, like a country club. Members only. No guests allowed, and there are only 32 memberships and all of them are filled.

There were rumors that Vegas were negociating with 2 AHL teams, so...

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

The NHL team just experienced a huge financial windfall in winning the Cup. Look at the season ticket situation for a more tangible sign. The financial burden of owning the AHL team or need for defraying some additional costs may not look as onerous. The ownership group has demonstrated a willingness to spend on things like the new practice facility. So, yes I think it’s reasonable to suppose their decision matrix around the AHL options may have broadened.

Winning the Stanley Cup barely added $9 million in gross income for the Blues. That’s not a huge windfall. Reconsider your decision matrix without the “huge financial windfall,” because it is erroneous to include it.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Winning the Stanley Cup barely added $9 million in gross income for the Blues. That’s not a huge windfall. Reconsider your decision matrix without the “huge financial windfall,” because it is erroneous to include it.

Your vision is too narrow. The games themselves add money, yes. But I’m actually referring to the boost in the corporate support profile. There is a waiting list for season tickets for the first time in forever. The enthusiasm for this team has a financial impact.

If you combine the healthy coffers with the frustration of the Blues’ AHL experience the last several years, why is it so hard to think there are lessons learned? We’ll see what they do, but it makes no sense to me to stubbornly assume their position on operating an AHL team is unchanged.

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

Your vision is too narrow. The games themselves add money, yes. But I’m actually referring to the boost in the corporate support profile. There is a waiting list for season tickets for the first time in forever. The enthusiasm for this team has a financial impact.

If you combine the healthy coffers with the frustration of the Blues’ AHL experience the last several years, why is it so hard to think there are lessons learned? We’ll see what they do, but it makes no sense to me to stubbornly assume their position on operating an AHL team is unchanged.

The Blues already had a financial impact bigger than winning the Cup: the Rams leaving for Los Angeles. Their financial situation had improved as a result, as had their already very good TV ratings. Winning the Cup hasn't going to massively improve their corporate support, and it hasn't according to their most recent income evaluation. If what you were saying was true, there would have been at least some huge increase. The team is still isn't very profitable during the regular season.

So the coffers being in an immensely improved state is false. The Blues have not really had a frustrating experience, they were extremely vocal about enjoying their relationship with San Antonio, so that's false. They still made around $13mil per year on average, and that is despite being the only team in the market not named the Cardinals. They had the undivided attention of the area for half of the year, and the TV ratings and ticket sales have showed how big and loyal their fanbase is. As others have pointed out with your posts, winning the Cup doesn't change much. So nothing has really changed, or at least nowhere near enough that their position on AHL operations has changed.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

The Blues already had a financial impact bigger than winning the Cup: the Rams leaving for Los Angeles. Their financial situation had improved as a result, as had their already very good TV ratings. Winning the Cup hasn't going to massively improve their corporate support, and it hasn't according to their most recent income evaluation. If what you were saying was true, there would have been at least some huge increase. The team is still isn't very profitable during the regular season.

So the coffers being in an immensely improved state is false. The Blues have not really had a frustrating experience, they were extremely vocal about enjoying their relationship with San Antonio, so that's false. They still made around $13mil per year on average, and that is despite being the only team in the market not named the Cardinals. They had the undivided attention of the area for half of the year, and the TV ratings and ticket sales have showed how big and loyal their fanbase is. As others have pointed out with your posts, winning the Cup doesn't change much. So nothing has really changed, or at least nowhere near enough that their position on AHL operations has changed.

I want implying the Blues were frustrated with the Rampage, but I’m sure they’re frustrated with the sudden loss of their affiliate. And they were visibly frustrated (both parties) with the Wolves situation. And most of all with the year with NO AHL affiliate.

Your point about the Rams is well taken.

I just wonder if they have reached the point where enough is enough and they will be willing and desirous to invest more in order to create some stability. They are in a better position to do so now. We can quibble about how much better, but it’s certainly not worse than it was last time they looked around.

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

I want implying the Blues were frustrated with the Rampage, but I’m sure they’re frustrated with the sudden loss of their affiliate. And they were visibly frustrated (both parties) with the Wolves situation. And most of all with the year with NO AHL affiliate.

Your point about the Rams is well taken.

I just wonder if they have reached the point where enough is enough and they will be willing and desirous to invest more in order to create some stability. They are in a better position to do so now. We can quibble about how much better, but it’s certainly not worse than it was last time they looked around.

While the Blues may have gone the full year without a full affiliate, they sent out every single prospect they needed to develop to either Chicago or San Antonio. Players were still sent down, called up, and developed, just not all from the same place.

The Blues haven't reached that desperation point yet. Their situation now is nowhere near "a better situation." The last time they were choosing an affiliate, 3 AHL teams were for sale and two expansion franchises were available. Are you actually being serious? Their situation now is a lot worse than it was last time they looked, considering there is practically no one willing to sell, no one is willing to pay their own way in, and no one is willing to share.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

I want implying the Blues were frustrated with the Rampage, but I’m sure they’re frustrated with the sudden loss of their affiliate. And they were visibly frustrated (both parties) with the Wolves situation. And most of all with the year with NO AHL affiliate.

Your point about the Rams is well taken.

I just wonder if they have reached the point where enough is enough and they will be willing and desirous to invest more in order to create some stability. They are in a better position to do so now. We can quibble about how much better, but it’s certainly not worse than it was last time they looked around.

who sold their affiliate to Vancouver, though, when the Canucks wanted out of Rosemont, what you're forgetting is the operator of the the current Canucks affiliate now in Utica..... Esche wanted in the AHL as an owner/operator and that's how the original affiliation BETWEEN THE Blues and Wolves started 3 years ago..... you also are forgetting the way SSE fleeced the Rampage franchise from Detroit so they could align in Grand Rapids once Ottawa elected to leave there with their own franchise, now in Belleville....

that's why the Blues are put into a 22 where there's no option under the current league structure and why sell the affiliate back then, that's why SSE and the Blues made this call.... it isn't financially viable to lose money on an affiliation for multiple years. the AHL doesn't or won't allow an NHL team not to be represented under the current structure as it is financially disadvantageous to either own or operate one or start a franchise outright even if the League is agreeable to it, much the way the Falcons were awarded in 1994, after the transfer of the the original Springfield Indians then to Worcester then Peoria....

that's why it's hard to say why SSE chose now to do exactly the same thing the Blues did, then, at least publically trying to explain why the Blues got out of the owner/operation end and simply focus on development as a straight affiliation.

the Blues simply have changed their philosophy in the last 3 years after being on the opposite side as the soon to be 20 of 32 owner/operation model, why would they return to that if that's not a financial success model

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

While the Blues may have gone the full year without a full affiliate, they sent out every single prospect they needed to develop to either Chicago or San Antonio. Players were still sent down, called up, and developed, just not all from the same place.

The Blues haven't reached that desperation point yet. Their situation now is nowhere near "a better situation." The last time they were choosing an affiliate, 3 AHL teams were for sale and two expansion franchises were available. Are you actually being serious? Their situation now is a lot worse than it was last time they looked, considering there is practically no one willing to sell, no one is willing to pay their own way in, and no one is willing to share.

I’m well aware of how the Blues managed things the year they didn’t have an AHL home team. I don’t understand what you’re trying to emphasize there. They were happy with things that year? They should do that again? It was a disaster, and Armstrong was fortunate to have good enough relationships with other GMs to find homes for guys. But Binnington’s developmental journey is a great case study in why that was not great. I don’t think you are seriously saying they can do that again (no affiliate), so what ARE you saying there?

I’m not commenting on the AHL franchise market. “Better situation” was simply from their side of the equation, their resources and ownership support. We can stipulate that you’re correct that there were more available options then. Maybe the market is all dried up now. The rumor is that Vegas was looking at 2 potential options to purchase. I doubt we can know the full details of the current market, but it sounds like at least one team could be available.

I’m not trying to paint a rosy picture on things. St Louis is in a bind largely of their own construction. Maybe everyone has to shake hands and try to make things work with the Wolves. But it appears neither party wants that. If not the Wolves, then what? I’m just speculating that the Blues would be more motivated to create another option now than they were prior to the stint with Chicago, and better able to accomplish that. But if they did want to buy a team, San Antonio would have been the better option.

I’m very curious what the outcome is, what the rules are in the following scenario:
All other NHL/AHL teams are paired off and the music stops with neither Chicago Wolves nor St Louis having another partner. But the two groups refuse to work together, we’ll say as a mutual choice for the sake of simplicity. Can the Wolves operate as an independent under ANY scenario? Would they be ‘forced’ to accept a deal with the Blues?

 

[210]

Can the Wolves operate as an independent under ANY scenario?

If you ask the AHL, they will tell you that independent franchises are not against their bylaws/rules.

Their actions in a previous situation certainly hint at that not being entirely true.

And I'm going to leave it at that...

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

who sold their affiliate to Vancouver, though, when the Canucks wanted out of Rosemont, what you're forgetting is the operator of the the current Canucks affiliate now in Utica..... Esche wanted in the AHL as an owner/operator and that's how the original affiliation BETWEEN THE Blues and Wolves started 3 years ago..... you also are forgetting the way SSE fleeced the Rampage franchise from Detroit so they could align in Grand Rapids once Ottawa elected to leave there with their own franchise, now in Belleville....

that's why the Blues are put into a 22 where there's no option under the current league structure and why sell the affiliate back then, that's why SSE and the Blues made this call.... it isn't financially viable to lose money on an affiliation for multiple years. the AHL doesn't or won't allow an NHL team not to be represented under the current structure as it is financially disadvantageous to either own or operate one or start a franchise outright even if the League is agreeable to it, much the way the Falcons were awarded in 1994, after the transfer of the the original Springfield Indians then to Worcester then Peoria....

that's why it's hard to say why SSE chose now to do exactly the same thing the Blues did, then, at least publically trying to explain why the Blues got out of the owner/operation end and simply focus on development as a straight affiliation.

the Blues simply have changed their philosophy in the last 3 years after being on the opposite side as the soon to be 20 of 32 owner/operation model, why would they return to that if that's not a financial success model

The model isn’t different. It would just be an accepted loss in the interest of having a better NHL team. Full control over player development. Isn’t that why all the other teams do it?

I’ll sum up my position this way:
The Blues tried to save costs by selling their AHL franchise. Time passed, stuff happened, some things haven’t worked well. The Blues see it as a competitive disadvantage to not have a stable affiliation, or an affiliation where they have a voice in developing players. It’s the same consideration as teams who choose to spend below the salary cap ceiling. It’s a competitive disadvantage, but sometimes financially necessary.

Under the Checketts ownership group, the Blues had a more restrictive internal budget. Under the current ownership, they’ve transitioned to a Cap Ceiling team. This would simply be another step that direction: operating an AHL team at a loss if necessary. I acknowledge I’m speculating that the internal view may have changed. That’s actually the entire point I’m trying to make, that I think it SHOULD have changed based on what’s happened. I gave reasons why I think this may be true.

The turbulence of the Blues’ AHL journey the last 5 years is a competitive disadvantage. For a team that relies heavily on drafting and developing its own players, the health of the AHL affiliate should be a higher priority.

 

[Centrum Hockey]

I’m well aware of how the Blues managed things the year they didn’t have an AHL home team. I don’t understand what you’re trying to emphasize there. They were happy with things that year? They should do that again? It was a disaster, and Armstrong was fortunate to have good enough relationships with other GMs to find homes for guys. But Binnington’s developmental journey is a great case study in why that was not great. I don’t think you are seriously saying they can do that again (no affiliate), so what ARE you saying there?

I’m not commenting on the AHL franchise market. “Better situation” was simply from their side of the equation, their resources and ownership support. We can stipulate that you’re correct that there were more available options then. Maybe the market is all dried up now. The rumor is that Vegas was looking at 2 potential options to purchase. I doubt we can know the full details of the current market, but it sounds like at least one team could be available.

I’m not trying to paint a rosy picture on things. St Louis is in a bind largely of their own construction. Maybe everyone has to shake hands and try to make things work with the Wolves. But it appears neither party wants that. If not the Wolves, then what? I’m just speculating that the Blues would be more motivated to create another option now than they were prior to the stint with Chicago, and better able to accomplish that. But if they did want to buy a team, San Antonio would have been the better option.

I’m very curious what the outcome is, what the rules are in the following scenario:
All other NHL/AHL teams are paired off and the music stops with neither Chicago Wolves nor St Louis having another partner. But the two groups refuse to work together, we’ll say as a mutual choice for the sake of simplicity. Can the Wolves operate as an independent under ANY scenario? Would they be ‘forced’ to accept a deal with the Blues?

If you use Norfolk as an example Levin could keep the wolves franchise and the blues could send their players to other AHL teams. But the wolves would be worthless because they would have no dates and maybe no ability to sign players.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

I’m well aware of how the Blues managed things the year they didn’t have an AHL home team. I don’t understand what you’re trying to emphasize there. They were happy with things that year? They should do that again? It was a disaster, and Armstrong was fortunate to have good enough relationships with other GMs to find homes for guys. But Binnington’s developmental journey is a great case study in why that was not great. I don’t think you are seriously saying they can do that again (no affiliate), so what ARE you saying there?

I’m not commenting on the AHL franchise market. “Better situation” was simply from their side of the equation, their resources and ownership support. We can stipulate that you’re correct that there were more available options then. Maybe the market is all dried up now. The rumor is that Vegas was looking at 2 potential options to purchase. I doubt we can know the full details of the current market, but it sounds like at least one team could be available.

I’m not trying to paint a rosy picture on things. St Louis is in a bind largely of their own construction. Maybe everyone has to shake hands and try to make things work with the Wolves. But it appears neither party wants that. If not the Wolves, then what? I’m just speculating that the Blues would be more motivated to create another option now than they were prior to the stint with Chicago, and better able to accomplish that. But if they did want to buy a team, San Antonio would have been the better option.

I’m very curious what the outcome is, what the rules are in the following scenario:
All other NHL/AHL teams are paired off and the music stops with neither Chicago Wolves nor St Louis having another partner. But the two groups refuse to work together, we’ll say as a mutual choice for the sake of simplicity. Can the Wolves operate as an independent under ANY scenario? Would they be ‘forced’ to accept a deal with the Blues?

simplistic answer is that Chicago has to be affiliated or the franchise essentially isn't recognized and they've known that since 2001, the League has taken a dim view of that the last 30 years by 1st forcing incoming teams, expansion or not, to have an affiliation that's why Atlanta, now Winnipeg, signed on as the Wolves initial affiliation which, then in turn ended Orlando's franchise for roughly a decade. You simply cannot operate competitively in the AHL by being an independent, it was tried twice before and failed..... hence why the League implemented having an affiliation, as a cost-saving measure to the ownership entity to operate a member franchise.....

of the 12 "privatized ownerships in the league, taking out the proposed agreement between Vegas and SSE, it sounds like no one else was willing to exercise the out clause.... remember, Vegas had to exercise the clause to leave, now whether said clause also includes a replacement affiliate be signed as has usually been the case with contracts being bought out, most have those clauses where the existing affiliate ie VGK cannot exit the current agreement without a penalty clause.... the Wolves themselves said they're not being sold to be relocated as Levin publically stated when the clause was exercised.

the point is, it is highly doubtful the Blues want to return to a model that has now become the norm the last 20 years.... simplistically, they're not interested in the expense of owning and operating an affiliate, which is why they did what they did and what Buford's statement as the agent for SSE publically stated.... it may be never known if those 12 ownerships said we're not available to be sold for relocation other than what SSE did, HOW accurate is the loss statement on the Rampage the last 18+ years which has also since been uncovered since the news broke as well...

the development model ie Binnington's being loaned out to Providence has no little consequence on the development model the Blues employed ..... in that case, it helped Providence, actually, because it gave them a veteran presence, or mentor.... something that was common place with multiple affiliations instead of a single affiliate philosophy..... the Philosophy in St. Louis regarding development changed and why SSE has come to the same conclusion that Armstrong did.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

The model isn’t different. It would just be an accepted loss in the interest of having a better NHL team. Full control over player development. Isn’t that why all the other teams do it?

I’ll sum up my position this way:
The Blues tried to save costs by selling their AHL franchise. Time passed, stuff happened, some things haven’t worked well. The Blues see it as a competitive disadvantage to not have a stable affiliation, or an affiliation where they have a voice in developing players. It’s the same consideration as teams who choose to spend below the salary cap ceiling. It’s a competitive disadvantage, but sometimes financially necessary.

Under the Checketts ownership group, the Blues had a more restrictive internal budget. Under the current ownership, they’ve transitioned to a Cap Ceiling team. This would simply be another step that direction: operating an AHL team at a loss if necessary. I acknowledge I’m speculating that the internal view may have changed. That’s actually the entire point I’m trying to make, that I think it SHOULD have changed based on what’s happened. I gave reasons why I think this may be true.

The turbulence of the Blues’ AHL journey the last 5 years is a competitive disadvantage. For a team that relies heavily on drafting and developing its own players, the health of the AHL affiliate should be a higher priority.

nope, here's why: SSE just came to the same conclusion the Blues did when they sold to Vancouver it is financially disadvantageous to own and operate an affiliate.... the Blues were doing that, no matter who owned the affiliate or the Blues themselves were talked into affiliating when hockey arrived in Worcester.

the same could be said about Vegas going from absolutely nothing cost-wise from getting a franchise approved, much like you're seeing Seattle do over Palm Springs, and getting multiple arenas/practice facilities approved

 

[axecrew]

The model isn’t different. It would just be an accepted loss in the interest of having a better NHL team. Full control over player development. Isn’t that why all the other teams do it?

I’ll sum up my position this way:
The Blues tried to save costs by selling their AHL franchise. Time passed, stuff happened, some things haven’t worked well. The Blues see it as a competitive disadvantage to not have a stable affiliation, or an affiliation where they have a voice in developing players. It’s the same consideration as teams who choose to spend below the salary cap ceiling. It’s a competitive disadvantage, but sometimes financially necessary.

Under the Checketts ownership group, the Blues had a more restrictive internal budget. Under the current ownership, they’ve transitioned to a Cap Ceiling team. This would simply be another step that direction: operating an AHL team at a loss if necessary. I acknowledge I’m speculating that the internal view may have changed. That’s actually the entire point I’m trying to make, that I think it SHOULD have changed based on what’s happened. I gave reasons why I think this may be true.

The turbulence of the Blues’ AHL journey the last 5 years is a competitive disadvantage. For a team that relies heavily on drafting and developing its own players, the health of the AHL affiliate should be a higher priority.

The problem with this is simple...the "internal view" you talk about is had by the very people who sold the franchise to begin with.
I find it mildly amusing that when all of this first came out..ALL of the "speculation" and idiotic comments about what was going to happen and how the Wolves were for sale...unbeknownst to their owner of course and all the other speculative comments.And what happened...a move totally out of left field that showed all the "internet experts" didnt have a flippin clue as to what they thought they knew.
So taking that into account why dont we stop speculating who said what who did what and wait and see what happens...based on current history nobody has a clue and itll be a move that none of us knew about.

 

[JMCx4]

... what happened...a move totally out of left field that showed all the "internet experts" didnt have a flippin clue as to what they thought they knew.
So taking that into account why dont we stop speculating who said what who did what and wait and see what happens...based on current history nobody has a clue and itll be a move that none of us knew about.

Lemme go first ... The Blues will establish an agreement with the first AHL affiliate from Europe?

 

[Clinton Comets EHL]

The problem with this is simple...the "internal view" you talk about is had by the very people who sold the franchise to begin with.
I find it mildly amusing that when all of this first came out..ALL of the "speculation" and idiotic comments about what was going to happen and how the Wolves were for sale...unbeknownst to their owner of course and all the other speculative comments.And what happened...a move totally out of left field that showed all the "internet experts" didnt have a flippin clue as to what they thought they knew.
So taking that into account why dont we stop speculating who said what who did what and wait and see what happens...based on current history nobody has a clue and itll be a move that none of us knew about.

So taking that into account why dont we stop speculating who said what who did what and wait and see what happens...based on current history nobody has a clue and itll be a move that none of us knew about.

This makes too much sense.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Where is the thread where I can discuss with those who observe the AHL closer than I do about the Blues’ likely next move? I’m being chided to ‘wait and see’. What are these threads for if not to compare insights about what the future holds?

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Where is the thread where I can discuss with those who observe the AHL closer than I do about the Blues’ likely next move? I’m being chided to ‘wait and see’. What are these threads for if not to compare insights about what the future holds?

what you've failed to acknowledge is what the Blues development philosophy has done to past and existing markets, no matter who has been running or operating the Blues on the NHL Level......

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

what you've failed to acknowledge is what the Blues development philosophy has done to past and existing markets, no matter who has been running or operating the Blues on the NHL Level......

The Blues’ views on developing players is hardly a unique view of the role for the AHL level. Other teams seem to employ that priority without crisis.

So you’re arguing they need to buy their own team? That they’re not an attractive partner? I’m not sure I’m following your comment. Or is there some other history here I’m missing?

 

[210]

I sense a mentioning of a city I am familiar with in the near future...

 

[JMCx4]

I sense a mentioning of a city I am familiar with in the near future...

Let the countdown begin ...

 

[Centrum Hockey]

The Blues already had a financial impact bigger than winning the Cup: the Rams leaving for Los Angeles. Their financial situation had improved as a result, as had their already very good TV ratings. Winning the Cup hasn't going to massively improve their corporate support, and it hasn't according to their most recent income evaluation. If what you were saying was true, there would have been at least some huge increase. The team is still isn't very profitable during the regular season.

So the coffers being in an immensely improved state is false. The Blues have not really had a frustrating experience, they were extremely vocal about enjoying their relationship with San Antonio, so that's false. They still made around $13mil per year on average, and that is despite being the only team in the market not named the Cardinals. They had the undivided attention of the area for half of the year, and the TV ratings and ticket sales have showed how big and loyal their fanbase is. As others have pointed out with your posts, winning the Cup doesn't change much. So nothing has really changed, or at least nowhere near enough that their position on AHL operations has changed.

The blues haven't been great ahl owners in the past. The final Icecats and Rivermen years where not as successful as when they where under the ownership of Roy Boe and Bruce Saurs and Anne Griffith .

 

[wildcat48]

Let's just play the what-if... I have no dog in this fight. My team is long gone and I'm in a new league now. But, what if St. Louis didn't want to go to Chicago, for whatever reason, and they opted to send players to other AHL affiliates or even an ECHL affiliate for a season or two. What would happen to Chicago without an affiliate? Yes, they could operate but would the AHL really allow them to operate? We could be looking at Norfolk all over again. Couldn't we? Because the NHL controls the product - the players - don't they have the leverage over the Wolves?

 

[210]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Blues worked out a deal with another NHL team to "switch" affiliations, with the other team moving on to affiliate with Chicago and the Blues taking on the other affiliate.