View Single Post
Old
03-30-2013, 04:15 PM
  #17
sh724
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Missouri
Country: United States
Posts: 2,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HooliganX2 View Post
Could it be Stillman is worse the Checketts? This really has me questioning the finances of our ownership group.
Well that depends on what you mean by 'worse'. Stillman has a much longer connection to the team and the city and cares a lot more about hockey and the Blues than Checketts did. However Checketts had more money to start with then Stillman has. Checketts was mostly spending other people's money trying to make the Blues profitable, he also had 50% of the concession money paid to him at once to spend on his investment. Stillman does not have those luxury and really needs the team to be profitable right away. Checketts did not intend to make a profit for the first few years and when his time table to turn a profit did not pan out Towerbrooke was ready to cash in their investment. The main difference is that for Checketts the Blues were pretty much an investment vehicle that he was trying to make profitable, in his career he has never had any long term business ventures. Stillman is more interested in the long term (if he can get there) and he sees the team as another Business that he owns and must work at to be succesful. If Stillman had the money available to him that Checketts did when he first bought the team, then the he would be able to do a lot more than what he is currently able to do.

sh724 is offline   Reply With Quote