Let's Go Blues

Well if anything the Blues are very resilient because they even said on KMOX the Blues haven't had steady ownership for any decent length of time and they have threatened to move more than once yet they are still here almost 50 years later!

I'm curious how many teams go through this shit in the NHL.

STLADOGG wrote:I'm curious how many teams go through this shit in the NHL.

Do you mean financially, or how many teams go through having idiots like JNE trolling their fan boards?

glen a richter wrote:

STLADOGG wrote:I'm curious how many teams go through this shit in the NHL.

Do you mean financially, or how many teams go through having idiots like JNE trolling their fan boards?

Lol I guess both, shit we got a double whammy here.

This article was written by someone who I feel absolutely does not like the Blues.

Financially, the bad deal with the Scott and Concessions is the single factor that is harming the Blues finances the worst.

As for being sold twice in the last 8.5 years, the writer fails at research; The Blues have been sold more times than ANY NHL team in their existance.

The Blues have been in existance for 47 years and have been sold SEVEN TIMES: (Salomom, Dean, Ornest, Shanahan, Laurie, SCP(Checketts), Stillman). Mathmatically the team has changed an owner every 6.714 years. How do you win a Cup that way?

To add depth to that, each of those teams were stripped down to sell for the new owner to have to build back up. This and this alone is why the Blues don't have a Cup yet.

If you look at teams who have won the Cup, the one thing they have in common for the most part is the longevity of their ownership. Teams build over time to win. By the time the Blues come to a point where they're one step away from winning - they get torn apart and sold.

And here's some food for thought: If the Blues finances are so bad, why haven't they been moved yet and why do they still attract buyers? If the market and the situation was that bad, they would have already been moved. They haven't. That alone calls bullshit on this entire article.

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:Wow! I had no idea it's that bad! It actually says it's time to panic and if the Blues are sold again they will move! Being financially even worse off than Phoenix is scary!



In 2006, the Blues were ranked as the 16th most valuable NHL franchise out of 30 teams, valued at $150 million. By 2012, the Blues had dropped to DEAD LAST in the league. And despite moving up to number 28 in 2013, the Blues are still worth less than the likes of the Arizona Coyotes, the Florida Panthers, the Carolina Hurricanes, and the Nashville Predators, to name a few.

Just let that sink in for a second:

The Blues are doing worse than the NHL’s most godforsaken hockey wasteland (Phoenix), a place so toxic the NHL itself had to step in and run the team

Yikes.

Even more alarming, the Blues have already been sold twice in the last 8 ½ years. In 2006, after losing the GDP of a small country (the Blues lost $91 million over the previous five years, by far the biggest loss in the NHL), billionaire Bill Laurie had had enough. In stepped Dave Checketts. And in 2006, the Bluesactually made money for the first time in a long time, ending up a whopping $1 million in the black.

But it was not to last.

There is absolutely no way the Blues finances are worst than the Yotes. When the NHL has to step in and set fire to stacks of money to -->> KEEP <<-- a team in a place where they're bleeding money, there is no other team worse. This article is more slanted than the K12 from Better Off Dead.

And if we're going to have 'this' kind of discussion, in all the years the Blues have been in existence, have they ever been THIS bad?:

http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2014/10/13/ ... e-senators

Exactly.

Yeah Oakland that's what they said on KMOX. The Blues have never had steady ownership for even a 10 year span. 7 owners in 47 years is pretty amazing but I didn't know that is more owners than any other NHL team since the Blues came into existence!

Stability is overrated. The Blackhawks sucked for how long BECAUSE they were stuck with Wirtz Sr.? The Kings have had five owners in the same period, the Sabres four (five if you count the league) and one of them was convicted of fraud. The Senators famously had multiple owners before playing a game. The Nordiques/Avalanche have had five owners since 1995, a period during which they've won nine divisional titles, two President's Trophies, two conference championships and two Stanley Cups. Sometimes teams get bought because they're successful, sometimes because they aren't. Sometimes owners strip the team in preparation for a sale (like the last two here) and sometimes they don't (like the Avalanche).

I agree with above posts that whoever wrote this either doesn't care for the Blues or doesn't care to learn their history. Which is fine but it adds up to a crap piece.

Also, yes, there must be something incomplete or selective about his numbers (again, hard to know, he links to supporting evidence that one can't view) if he has the Blues doing worse than the Coyotes/Panthers/Canes.

Finally, unfortunately, there is no one reason the Blues haven't won a Cup. I wish it were that easy.

Oaklandblue wrote:

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:Wow! I had no idea it's that bad! It actually says it's time to panic and if the Blues are sold again they will move! Being financially even worse off than Phoenix is scary!



In 2006, the Blues were ranked as the 16th most valuable NHL franchise out of 30 teams, valued at $150 million. By 2012, the Blues had dropped to DEAD LAST in the league. And despite moving up to number 28 in 2013, the Blues are still worth less than the likes of the Arizona Coyotes, the Florida Panthers, the Carolina Hurricanes, and the Nashville Predators, to name a few.

Just let that sink in for a second:

The Blues are doing worse than the NHL’s most godforsaken hockey wasteland (Phoenix), a place so toxic the NHL itself had to step in and run the team

Yikes.

Even more alarming, the Blues have already been sold twice in the last 8 ½ years. In 2006, after losing the GDP of a small country (the Blues lost $91 million over the previous five years, by far the biggest loss in the NHL), billionaire Bill Laurie had had enough. In stepped Dave Checketts. And in 2006, the Bluesactually made money for the first time in a long time, ending up a whopping $1 million in the black.

But it was not to last.

There is absolutely no way the Blues finances are worst than the Yotes. When the NHL has to step in and set fire to stacks of money to -->> KEEP <<-- a team in a place where they're bleeding money, there is no other team worse. This article is more slanted than the K12 from Better Off Dead.

I have nothing to add to this except kudos for dropping the Better off Dead reference.

STLADOGG wrote:

glen a richter wrote:

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:What do you mean? They have the bad concessions and FSMW contracts which were both front loaded.

Player contracts, you halfwit.

I appreciate the guy entertaining us all off-season, but the troll can leave now.

If only there were someone whose job was to take care of trolls. I think they're called an "admin" or something.

eh - the owners are always crying poor. Christ we sell out 110% of the seats every game and our owner is still claiming that he's losing money - even with my ticket prices almost tripling in 5 years.

Forbes just put out their 2014 list, Blues are up to 25th w/ a 27% increase in value over last year.

http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/

There is no way St.Louis would let the Blues leave with the Rams having one foot out the door and our history with the Big Red having left.

The Blues are here to stay! Cup or no Cup!