HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > St. Louis Blues
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Blues sale is finally complete!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-20-2011, 08:47 PM
  #76
Spektre
Registered User
 
Spektre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 272
vCash: 50
Andy Strickland reported that there is a group of local investors that are interested in buying the Blues but that TowerBrook is asking way too much. Don't quote me on the figures but I believe he said TowerBrook was asking something close to 150 million and the local group was bidding around 100.

If that's true then obviously they're very far apart. But who knows where Andy is getting that info and if it's fact or fiction.

The thing is that Checketts wants to still be the face of whatever ownership buys in but I'm not sure that will happen. If someone is buying 70% of the Blues they're going to run it how they see fit. That includes the front office and the face of the organization. You would think that the new owners would recognize what the guys in charge have done as far as bringing the fans back and leave things the same but you never know.

Also there was talk about the potential owners were trying to see if ESPN was going to pick up the NHL again.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/hocke...a7d1f6f59.html

That's the latest article I can find.


Last edited by Spektre: 02-20-2011 at 08:53 PM.
Spektre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2011, 12:55 PM
  #77
Mr Dangles
I double dare you.
 
Mr Dangles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 1,991
vCash: 500
I'm beginning to wonder how much of an impact missing the playoffs would have on the sale with the half now half later season ticket deal. We did shed money with these trades however.

Mr Dangles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2011, 01:09 PM
  #78
2 Minute Minor
Hi Keeba!
 
2 Minute Minor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Temple, Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 7,429
vCash: 714
People are really perseverating on that ticket deal. The playoffs would be a big financial benefit, but a fraction of that would have to do with those tickets. The fact is, those are seats that don't usually sell well....so its already probably a net plus for whatever they sold even if they only pay 1/2 regular price. That deal was a marketing ploy and not a financial burden.

The playoffs would be excellent for other reasons, however.

2 Minute Minor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2011, 01:47 PM
  #79
Mr Dangles
I double dare you.
 
Mr Dangles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 1,991
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2 Minute Minor View Post
People are really perseverating on that ticket deal. The playoffs would be a big financial benefit, but a fraction of that would have to do with those tickets. The fact is, those are seats that don't usually sell well....so its already probably a net plus for whatever they sold even if they only pay 1/2 regular price. That deal was a marketing ploy and not a financial burden.

The playoffs would be excellent for other reasons, however.
That makes sense, and I know it was only a limited number, I was just speculating.

Mr Dangles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2011, 01:49 PM
  #80
SteenMachine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Fenton, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 4,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Dangles View Post
That makes sense, and I know it was only a limited number, I was just speculating.
Think of this way, could they really afford to be that cocky in September?

SteenMachine is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2011, 01:57 PM
  #81
Mr Dangles
I double dare you.
 
Mr Dangles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 1,991
vCash: 500
Good point. We sure have a clever marketing and sales crew. Its no wonder we have been among the top in the league in attendance.

What isn't attractive about this team for buyers? It must be the asking price plus Checketts wanting to keep control.

Mr Dangles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2011, 03:50 PM
  #82
SteenMachine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Fenton, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 4,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Dangles View Post
Good point. We sure have a clever marketing and sales crew. Its no wonder we have been among the top in the league in attendance.

What isn't attractive about this team for buyers? It must be the asking price plus Checketts wanting to keep control.
Right he's looking for business investors not a hockey man with a fortune to back us up, puts a weird complication on things.

SteenMachine is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2011, 04:27 PM
  #83
Robb_K
Registered User
 
Robb_K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: NordHolandNethrlands
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,668
vCash: 500
I still don't understand why this purchase is such a big deal. I read that Towerbrook liked how the attendance has bounced back from the lockout days, and the Blues' franchise value has increased, and so, decided to keep 75% of their stake (only to sell 25%). If that is true, they'd only be selling 25% of 70% of The Blues,-equaling only 17.5% of The Blues' stock. Maybe what I read was not true? I don't remember the source.

Robb_K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2011, 06:03 PM
  #84
SteenMachine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Fenton, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 4,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robb_K View Post
I still don't understand why this purchase is such a big deal. I read that Towerbrook liked how the attendance has bounced back from the lockout days, and the Blues' franchise value has increased, and so, decided to keep 75% of their stake (only to sell 25%). If that is true, they'd only be selling 25% of 70% of The Blues,-equaling only 17.5% of The Blues' stock. Maybe what I read was not true? I don't remember the source.
I think it might be the opposite, as in, they wanted 25% of it and were giving up 75% of theirs to the new majority owner.

SteenMachine is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2011, 06:47 PM
  #85
2 Minute Minor
Hi Keeba!
 
2 Minute Minor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Temple, Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 7,429
vCash: 714
Either way, from the way hockey decisions have been made I have to believe the internal budget is too big of a constraint. There are several important long-term contract talks coming up in the next year or so....and a stable owner is going to be important for that.

Having said that...the Halak and Backes deals were not adversely affected.

2 Minute Minor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2011, 08:20 PM
  #86
Robb_K
Registered User
 
Robb_K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: NordHolandNethrlands
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,668
vCash: 500
It's clear that The Blues will NOT be able to compete for The Stanley Cup unless they will be able to spend significantly more money (at LEAST up to within 20-25% of the cap maximum of the gap between the minimum to the maximum (or within 10-15% of the maximum). New (deep pockets) ownership, plus a better city tax situation could help.

Robb_K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2011, 12:49 PM
  #87
MedicBluesFan443
Registered User
 
MedicBluesFan443's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New Haven MO.
Country: United States
Posts: 155
vCash: 500
I just heard Strickland again talking on kfns stating a source tells him the deal chekkets was working on is more in question now then before. This team needs stability in managment and finance and they need it in a damn hurry. This talent wont stay young forever and its time now to add a few small pieces and get us to the cup finals. With out the $$$$ its back to the last 44 years of frustrations.

MedicBluesFan443 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2011, 01:58 PM
  #88
2 Minute Minor
Hi Keeba!
 
2 Minute Minor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Temple, Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 7,429
vCash: 714
Its almost to the point that I feel Checketts being in charge as a stipulation may have to become more flexible. If that's what it takes to get a new owner, so be it. The problem is I'm worried we could get someone in that will want their own management team....and I'm still pretty confident in this team (particularly now that Armstrong is showing his vision).

On the bright side, the patience period for the rebuild is pretty much over, so how bad could they screw things up?

2 Minute Minor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2011, 02:24 PM
  #89
stlweir
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,516
vCash: 500
How many teams are for sale/hiaving problems like the Blues? Isn't there a handfull?
Dallas, Nashville, Pheonix? Buffalo just introduced a new owner.


Last edited by stlweir: 02-23-2011 at 10:32 AM. Reason: Addition
stlweir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-28-2011, 03:36 AM
  #90
JustOneB4IDie
Everyone Overpayment
 
JustOneB4IDie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: St. Louis MO
Country: United States
Posts: 3,381
vCash: 50
I am sick and tired of this ongoing search for "Investors" fiasco. We have sold out all games this year to a team that is 13th in the Western Conference.

A recent survey on the Bleacher Report ranked all of the NHL teams owners, and the Blues ranked 29th just ahead of mess down in Phoenix at 30 that the NHL took over.

The fans of St. Louis deserve a better ownership group.



This whole build thru the Draft has produced mixed results. With the Boyes trade, the Blues find themselfs near the " Floor " of Minimum salary now. I am skeptical. The Blues are a Cursed Franchise.

JustOneB4IDie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-28-2011, 03:45 AM
  #91
2 Minute Minor
Hi Keeba!
 
2 Minute Minor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Temple, Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 7,429
vCash: 714
Sell the team to the city of St Louis (like the Green Bay Packers). We can all buy shares. Also, no danger of the Blues moving ever.

2 Minute Minor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-28-2011, 04:35 AM
  #92
SteenMachine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Fenton, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 4,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2 Minute Minor View Post
Sell the team to the city of St Louis (like the Green Bay Packers). We can all buy shares. Also, no danger of the Blues moving ever.
They might finally stop getting an outrageous tax.

SteenMachine is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2011, 02:36 PM
  #93
Overkamp
Registered User
 
Overkamp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 2,161
vCash: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteenMachine View Post
They might finally stop getting an outrageous tax.
I still can't understand how it's fair that the Rams and Cards are exempt from that stupid entertainment tax but the Blues still have to pay it?

Total bull.

Overkamp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2011, 01:46 PM
  #94
SteenMachine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Fenton, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 4,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overkamp View Post
I still can't understand how it's fair that the Rams and Cards are exempt from that stupid entertainment tax but the Blues still have to pay it?

Total bull.
*Shrug* No one wants to headline at their stadiums? You think the team that managed to replace the Arena would be compensated not punished for it.

SteenMachine is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2011, 01:58 PM
  #95
NashvilleBlues
Registered User
 
NashvilleBlues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overkamp View Post
I still can't understand how it's fair that the Rams and Cards are exempt from that stupid entertainment tax but the Blues still have to pay it?

Total bull.
Unfortunately, I think it probably has something to do with the Rams and Cards winning championships in the past 10 or so years.

NashvilleBlues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2011, 02:57 PM
  #96
bluesfan94
#BackesforSelke
 
bluesfan94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 8,119
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteenMachine View Post
*Shrug* No one wants to headline at their stadiums? You think the team that managed to replace the Arena would be compensated not punished for it.
Yeah, but just the Blues, and not the artists, could be exempt. Did Dave Matthews Band or the Eagles have to pay entertainment taxes when they had a concert at Busch?

bluesfan94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2011, 10:14 AM
  #97
Oshie97
Registered User
 
Oshie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,374
vCash: 500
Checketts

Was reading a little on STL Today and Jeremy Rutherford mentioned that Checketts has had multiple offers to buy the team from him and take over. He said that Checketts was not interested but has not had any success on finding a investor. Didn't Checketts tell everyone that it was 95% at one point? He has missed two deadlines that he set himself one before the new year and one at the all star game/late feb. If there are individuals with deep pockets that want to keep the team in St. Louis shouldn't he sell the team instead of holding them back? JR mentioned at least one group would definitely keep the Blues here. I just think as fans we deserve to have the best owner available since we have supported this struggling team for the last 5 yrs. It looks like SCP only ownes 10% of the Blues. How in the world is he in charge when his company owns 10%? No way another investor comes in and lets him keep control of the team, most rich people get rich by making smart investments. If he does not have the money to produce a competitive team he needs to step aside as long as the team stays here. If he refuses to sell but runs a cheap team next yr I'm out, ill watch them at home.

Oshie97 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2011, 11:53 AM
  #98
jmwc95
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,002
vCash: 500
Managing partner agreement. That's how he's in control.

Also, take it for what it's worth, but my dad's friend has some connections with members of the Blues organization and he says that there are several offers, but Towerbrook and the investors are haggling over the price. Towerbrook wants something like 50% more than they are offering. It would still be a profit for them, but they are trying to get a higher ROI and are haggling over the price while keeping their holding expenses (i.e. payroll) down. He says the most serious person bidding on the team is a St. Louisan named Webster. I forget his first name.

He also says that Armstrong isn't very fond of Jackman and that he was looking to move Jackman at the deadline but couldn't find any good offers and moving him would have put us dangerously close to the cap floor. He says that deadline deals to trade Johnson and dump some of the established veterans was to assert himself as GM. Says there are a lot of Blues alumni that are tight with many of the players and management and try and influence the organization. When Davidson first got here he leaned on some of them a little, but wanted an strong outsider like Armstrong to take over for Pleau. He says MacInnis especially was meddling in personnel too much and was a big fan of Jackman and Johnson. Whoever is my dad's friend's source in the organization is not a fan of MacInnis and pretty much trashes him whenever he can.

Again, believe me or not, I'm just relaying what I have been told.

jmwc95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2011, 12:18 PM
  #99
BlueBeard
Registered User
 
BlueBeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 2,769
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmwc95 View Post
Managing partner agreement. That's how he's in control.

Also, take it for what it's worth, but my dad's friend has some connections with members of the Blues organization and he says that there are several offers, but Towerbrook and the investors are haggling over the price. Towerbrook wants something like 50% more than they are offering. It would still be a profit for them, but they are trying to get a higher ROI and are haggling over the price while keeping their holding expenses (i.e. payroll) down. He says the most serious person bidding on the team is a St. Louisan named Webster. I forget his first name.

He also says that Armstrong isn't very fond of Jackman and that he was looking to move Jackman at the deadline but couldn't find any good offers and moving him would have put us dangerously close to the cap floor. He says that deadline deals to trade Johnson and dump some of the established veterans was to assert himself as GM. Says there are a lot of Blues alumni that are tight with many of the players and management and try and influence the organization. When Davidson first got here he leaned on some of them a little, but wanted an strong outsider like Armstrong to take over for Pleau. He says MacInnis especially was meddling in personnel too much and was a big fan of Jackman and Johnson. Whoever is my dad's friend's source in the organization is not a fan of MacInnis and pretty much trashes him whenever he can.
Again, believe me or not, I'm just relaying what I have been told.
Well it's a good think Armstrong asserted himself into this team unable to keep the puck out of their own net. That'll teach 'em real good Dougie! Is there an "I really only mean just a little sarcasm" smiley?

I'm not saying your bolded statement is wrong, it is just really hard to imagine how anyone could trash MacInnis. Isn't MacInnis the VP of player develoment? You would think that the duties of that job would include some "meddling" from time to time.

BlueBeard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2011, 12:38 PM
  #100
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueBeard View Post
Well it's a good think Armstrong asserted himself into this team unable to keep the puck out of their own net. That'll teach 'em real good Dougie! Is there an "I really only mean just a little sarcasm" smiley?

I'm not saying your bolded statement is wrong, it is just really hard to imagine how anyone could trash MacInnis. Isn't MacInnis the VP of player develoment? You would think that the duties of that job would include some "meddling" from time to time.
Moving Jackman leaves the Blues Coliacavo and Polak as their most experienced Dmen. If you add Pietroangelo and Shattenkirk, who will be sophomores next season, then you have what, Cole and Nitikin to round out the top 6? Yikes....... Even with Jackman in the fold, the Blues need a veteran defensive Dman, getting rid of him is fine if they can improve the blueline.

Street Hawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:45 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.