Mike In Illinois Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Article. Dave Checketts led a group in purchasing the St.Louis Blues in 2006. One of the investors decided to withdraw in 2010 and Checketts was unable to secure a replacement partner for the ownership group. As a Blues fan I've been encouraged by the current ownership group and I feel they have the foundation in place to be a good team soon. I just hope they turn the corner and do not regress any more. Do any of you Sabres fans have any perspective or thoughts on this (given you just went through an ownership change)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Article. Dave Checketts led a group in purchasing the St.Louis Blues in 2006. One of the investors decided to withdraw in 2010 and Checketts was unable to secure a replacement partner for the ownership group. As a Blues fan I've been encouraged by the current ownership group and I feel they have the foundation in place to be a good team soon. I just hope they turn the corner and do not regress any more. Do any of you Sabres fans have any perspective or thoughts on this (given you just went through an ownership change)? That is too bad. Is there a sense that this could mean the end of the franchise? From what I understand, St Louis is a good US hockey city. I can't imagine that the NHL would be thrilled with the idea of them leaving St Louis, given their long tradition. I have seen in recent days that the Thrashers and Coyotes could very well be uprooting from their towns. That can't be good for the league. I wonder if the NHL would step in, as it did with the Sabres and Coyotes, to run the team, until an owner can be found. We (Sabres fans) were very fortunate to have Tom Golisano step in when he did. It sounds as though the Coyotes could be going back to Winnipeg, I move I would embrace...and I would love to see Quebec have a team again...but the Blues need to stay in St Louis...what is Chuck Berry up to? Best of luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike In Illinois Posted March 17, 2011 Author Share Posted March 17, 2011 (edited) That is too bad. Is there a sense that this could mean the end of the franchise? From what I understand, St Louis is a good US hockey city. I can't imagine that the NHL would be thrilled with the idea of them leaving St Louis, given their long tradition. I have seen in recent days that the Thrashers and Coyotes could very well be uprooting from their towns. That can't be good for the league. I wonder if the NHL would step in, as it did with the Sabres and Coyotes, to run the team, until an owner can be found. We (Sabres fans) were very fortunate to have Tom Golisano step in when he did. It sounds as though the Coyotes could be going back to Winnipeg, I move I would embrace...and I would love to see Quebec have a team again...but the Blues need to stay in St Louis...what is Chuck Berry up to? Best of luck. More with Checketts. In this article it mentions that the NHL was keeping an eye on the situation and would have stepped in to run the franchise if it got bad. There's always a possibility the new owner could move the team but Checketts is adamant about selling to an owner who will keep the team in St. Louis. One of the partners in the ownership group has shown interest in buying the team but their offer is not quite up to market value as of now. St. Louis is a great (US) hockey city that was slowly coming back to see the Blues play the last couple of years. I don't think Phoenix or Atlanta have proven to be great cities for NHL franchises- Atlanta has proven this more than once now. Right after the lockout the franchise took a nose dive (remember Mike Danton?) and the new ownership group was working hard to get the fans to come back. Many of the home games are sell-outs, even if the team is near the bottom in the conference standings, and the Blues are now break-even on their finances. It will take that new owner to infuse money into the team in order to bring in some quality players via free agency or trade. I heard on the radio last night that they are financially sound enough to sign their core players (TJ Oshie, Patrick Berglund, David Perron, etc) to long-term contracts so they should have a stable nucleus for many years. A brief history on the Blues for those who may not know much about them: Their inaugural season was 1967-1968; they made the Cup Finals their first three years- the coach was Scotty Bowman. They've also had Al Arbour as a coach. The team qualified for the playoffs 25 straight seasons ('80-'04) but never got to the Cup Finals during that stretch. They won the President's Cup in '99-'00 but were upset by the San Jose Sharks in 7 games (Roman Turek, anyone?) of Round One. The low point was in 1983 when owners Ralston Purina (Dog Chow) practically abandoned the team and put them up for sale. They did not send any team representative to the Entry Draft and thereby did not draft a single player. The team was initially sold to Bill Hunter who planned to move the team to Saskatoon (maybe Goons for a nickname?) but the NHL stepped in because they wanted the team to stay in St. Louis; they were eventually sold to Harry Ornest and remains in the Gateway City to this day. I think the team will stay in St. Louis but it may take a while to find someone willing to spend $175 million to buy the franchise. EDIT: Chuck Berry is still around. He plays a monthly show in the Duck Room at Blueberry Hill. Edited March 17, 2011 by Champaign Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 I wish the leagues would embrace partial ownership with the fans. Green Bay football model. The fans could buy "shares" in the team but a single individual or group could maintain majority ownership. Sports franchises use the name of the city where they are located. As a result they become more than simple entertainment. They become part of the culture of the community. It seems wrong to treat the community and fans with a threat of moving the franchise every time a potential ownership change is in the works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 I wish the leagues would embrace partial ownership with the fans. Green Bay football model. The fans could buy "shares" in the team but a single individual or group could maintain majority ownership. Sports franchises use the name of the city where they are located. As a result they become more than simple entertainment. They become part of the culture of the community. It seems wrong to treat the community and fans with a threat of moving the franchise every time a potential ownership change is in the works. Agreed. You would think this would appeal to the NHL, in particular, who always seem to fighting to remain relevent in the US. I love hockey, as many of on TSW do...but you go to a NHL area and people aren't very aware of the legue. I wear a Buffalo Sabres t-shirt in Austin, and people ask me if it a minor league baseball team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Not slamming the Blues here... But the only reason they made The Cup Finals the first years after the 1967 expansion is because ALL the expansion teams were in the West. That is the reason why they got killed too. Anyway... I hope they stay in STL. I wish the leagues would embrace partial ownership with the fans. Green Bay football model. The fans could buy "shares" in the team but a single individual or group could maintain majority ownership. Sports franchises use the name of the city where they are located. As a result they become more than simple entertainment. They become part of the culture of the community. It seems wrong to treat the community and fans with a threat of moving the franchise every time a potential ownership change is in the works. PINKO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts