Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

We can hope can we not?


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#1 Cajanek_Spielmacher

Cajanek_Spielmacher

    4th Line Grinder

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Location:SEC 114 ROW Q SEAT 1....St. Louis, Mo.

Posted 09 July 2011 - 12:09 PM

I just felt like throwing this out there for visceral disection by the enemy!! http://interact.stlt...ic.php?t=807874 :lol:

Edited by Cajanek_Spielmacher, 09 July 2011 - 12:10 PM.

PRIDE-PASSION-DETERMINATION-FAITH-ST.LOUIS BLUES----

#2 Dimaline312000

Dimaline312000

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,182 posts

Posted 09 July 2011 - 03:59 PM

Ok, who let the Blues fan on??

#3 HelmFan

HelmFan

    Rookie

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 146 posts
  • Location:Winnipeg

Posted 09 July 2011 - 07:21 PM

I think he's worth "only" around 300 million. It seems stupid to me that he would spend half of his net worth on a business that doesn't make any money.
Can anyone explain why Hulsizer wants to buy one of these money losing teams so bad?

#4 CaliWingsNut

CaliWingsNut

    PeeWee Bettman

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,744 posts
  • Location:Sonoma County, CA

Posted 09 July 2011 - 09:03 PM

I think he's worth "only" around 300 million. It seems stupid to me that he would spend half of his net worth on a business that doesn't make any money.
Can anyone explain why Hulsizer wants to buy one of these money losing teams so bad?


My link

Hulsizer grew up in New Jersey and calls himself a hockey fan, player, and coach. He actually played hockey at Division III Amherst College and is currently a registered USA Hockey coach in Winnetka, Illinois.


He also views it as a good long term investment.

Edited by CaliWingsNut, 09 July 2011 - 09:03 PM.

Figures don't lie, but liars sure figure. - Mark Twain


#5 Hiei

Hiei

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,290 posts
  • Location:Centerton, AR via Mt. Carroll, IL

Posted 09 July 2011 - 10:32 PM

Let's look at it like this:


The Blues sold out all 19,150 seats at Scottrade Center 41 of 41 times last season. (ESPN)

The Blues are 11.5 million under the cap thus far. (capgeek)

The Blues are probably some postseason success away from frenzy-ing the populace in STL since the cardinals are standing to lose Pujols and inevitably slide, plus the rams are still sucking.

The Blues probably aren't bleeding money. The team was bought, mostly, on a loan of $120 million (or 80% of the final sale price) which was written in 2006, prior to the housing bubble burst. Checketts and Co. probably are getting pressure from CitiGroup (bailout anyone?) to pay back.

So Hulsizer pulls out of the deal with Phoenix because the details on that get sketchier by the minute. St Louis is a solid team with a fanbase established, and money ready to be printed. After all, Hulsizer wasn't planning on buying a team to move like Balsille or TNSE.


It boils down to this: Get a stable owner who is willing to use some $. Get the tickets to a reasonable price level to sustain the team somewhat, because if they're bleeding 10-15 million a year (one post on that thread in the link) while still being that much under the cap, what are they selling tickets for? 50 cents?

"Hit em with your purse, ya *****!" - Random Wings fans shouting at Franziska


#6 Zetts

Zetts

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 968 posts
  • Location:Edmonton

Posted 10 July 2011 - 10:01 AM

St. Louis Blues yearly operating income:

2001: -9 million
2002: -18 million
2003: -29 million
2004: -29 million
2005: n/a
2006: +1 million
2007: -5 million
2008: -9 million
2009: -3 million
2010: -6 million

http://www.forbes.co...ues_314286.html


Yeah...I would not make that "investment" whether it's improving or not (which is debatable).

Edit: Further to this, the value of the Blues actually fell 11 million between 2009 and 2010.

Edited by Zetts, 10 July 2011 - 10:02 AM.


#7 mjlegend

mjlegend

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,903 posts
  • Location:Moose Jaw, SK

Posted 10 July 2011 - 10:12 AM

Might be a good investment if he moves the Blues to Hamilton.

#8 Hiei

Hiei

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,290 posts
  • Location:Centerton, AR via Mt. Carroll, IL

Posted 10 July 2011 - 12:37 PM

St. Louis Blues yearly operating income:

2001: -9 million
2002: -18 million
2003: -29 million
2004: -29 million
2005: n/a
2006: +1 million
2007: -5 million
2008: -9 million
2009: -3 million
2010: -6 million

http://www.forbes.co...ues_314286.html


Yeah...I would not make that "investment" whether it's improving or not (which is debatable).

Edit: Further to this, the value of the Blues actually fell 11 million between 2009 and 2010.


Value is subjective to speculation and inflation/time passing. Look at the ever-fluctuating prices of oil based on speculation, or land values, depending on area of country and economic status. a 3 story house in Michigan sells for less than a 3 story house here in Northwest Arkansas because the economy here is more robust.

I do think the Blues are a couple tinkers away from making money. It would take a savvy business mind to do it, but Hulsizer made his money off the traded bank loans and other crap that caused the crisis in the first place, so while he can get away with it, he probably will. Look at Eugene Melnyk.

"Hit em with your purse, ya *****!" - Random Wings fans shouting at Franziska


#9 Zetts

Zetts

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 968 posts
  • Location:Edmonton

Posted 10 July 2011 - 12:49 PM

Value is subjective to speculation and inflation/time passing. Look at the ever-fluctuating prices of oil based on speculation, or land values, depending on area of country and economic status. a 3 story house in Michigan sells for less than a 3 story house here in Northwest Arkansas because the economy here is more robust.

I do think the Blues are a couple tinkers away from making money. It would take a savvy business mind to do it, but Hulsizer made his money off the traded bank loans and other crap that caused the crisis in the first place, so while he can get away with it, he probably will. Look at Eugene Melnyk.

The economy that the Blues operate in is their reality. They're not going to be re-located any time soon, and thus, whether it's based off of speculation or not, it transfers into a loss of value for the owner - the reason is irrelevant. As for inflation/time passing, that's again irrelevant, as it's a real (as opposed to nominal) loss that the owners experience.

And the operating income losses are yearly deficits. That means that every year, the owner puts out more money than he gets back in. The biggest gain is 1 million in the past decade. Could they turn around? I suppose it's possible. I wouldn't invest in something that's lost 107 million over 9 seasons though.

Edited by Zetts, 10 July 2011 - 12:52 PM.


#10 CaliWingsNut

CaliWingsNut

    PeeWee Bettman

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,744 posts
  • Location:Sonoma County, CA

Posted 10 July 2011 - 12:52 PM

St. Louis Blues yearly operating income:

2001: -9 million
2002: -18 million
2003: -29 million
2004: -29 million
2005: n/a
2006: +1 million
2007: -5 million
2008: -9 million
2009: -3 million
2010: -6 million

http://www.forbes.co...ues_314286.html


Yeah...I would not make that "investment" whether it's improving or not (which is debatable).

Edit: Further to this, the value of the Blues actually fell 11 million between 2009 and 2010.


Past profits do not predict future gains... the same can be said about losses in many cases. I sorta doubt the Blues organization has been run the way Hulsizer plans to operate the organization.

Also, had you bothered to read the article I posted, Hulsizer is talking about gains 20-25 years from now.

Edited by CaliWingsNut, 10 July 2011 - 12:53 PM.

Figures don't lie, but liars sure figure. - Mark Twain


#11 Zetts

Zetts

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 968 posts
  • Location:Edmonton

Posted 10 July 2011 - 01:01 PM

Past profits do not predict future gains... the same can be said about losses in many cases. I sorta doubt the Blues organization has been run the way Hulsizer plans to operate the organization.

Also, had you bothered to read the article I posted, Hulsizer is talking about gains 20-25 years from now.

Yes...past profits do actually predict future gains (to an extent obviously). A good portion of profits/losses is based off of market potential. That has to do with the ability to generate revenue within that market. The portion of St. Louis's value attributed to the market (in 2010) was 62m. That's low. As a point of reference, that's 17m less than the Edmonton Oilers. The lowest market valuation that made money was LA's 73m in 2010.

Edited by Zetts, 10 July 2011 - 01:02 PM.


#12 CaliWingsNut

CaliWingsNut

    PeeWee Bettman

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,744 posts
  • Location:Sonoma County, CA

Posted 10 July 2011 - 01:03 PM

Yes...past profits do actually predict future gains (to an extent obviously). A good portion of profits/losses is based off of market potential. That has to do with the ability to generate revenue within that market. The portion of St. Louis's value attributed to the market (in 2010) was 62m. That's low. As a point of reference, that's 17m less than the Edmonton Oilers.


Actually... they don't. Especially when you change things.

But since you think they do, I've got some stock shares of Enron I'd like to sell you.

Figures don't lie, but liars sure figure. - Mark Twain


#13 Zetts

Zetts

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 968 posts
  • Location:Edmonton

Posted 10 July 2011 - 01:08 PM

Actually... they don't. Especially when you change things.

But since you think they do, I've got some stock shares of Enron I'd like to sell you.

We both know that's a ridiculous example, as that's an extreme exception.

It's painfully naive to ignore past profits. I assure you, stock traders observe past profits. Does it determine everything? Obviously not. But it's stupid to say they're meaningless.

If you were to read my posts:

Could they turn around? I suppose it's possible. I wouldn't invest in something that's lost 107 million over 9 seasons though.


They COULD turn around, but they LIKELY won't.

You really think all markets have a profitable potential? Great. Call me when Phoenix's profits surpass that of the Wings. Because market potential (a HUGE determinant of past profits) is clearly meaningless. So hell, it's 50-50 that could happen next year. :rolleyes:

Edited by Zetts, 10 July 2011 - 01:13 PM.


#14 CaliWingsNut

CaliWingsNut

    PeeWee Bettman

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,744 posts
  • Location:Sonoma County, CA

Posted 10 July 2011 - 01:14 PM

We both know that's a ridiculous example, as that's an extreme exception.

If you were to read my posts:



They COULD turn around, but they LIKELY won't. It's painfully naive to ignore past profits. I assure you, stock traders observe past profits and they know more than you. Does it determine everything? Obviously not. But it's stupid to say they're meaningless.

You really think all markets have a profitable potential? Great. Call me when Phoenix's profits surpass that of the Wings. Because market potential (a HUGE determinant of past profits) is clearly meaningless. So hell, it's 50-50 that could happen next year. :rolleyes:


Umm... I stock day trade.
I didn't say ignore profits. I said they don't predict future gains. Enron maybe a extreme case, but it's a perfect one. They cooked books for ages to stay afloat.

Edited by CaliWingsNut, 10 July 2011 - 01:16 PM.

Figures don't lie, but liars sure figure. - Mark Twain


#15 Zetts

Zetts

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 968 posts
  • Location:Edmonton

Posted 10 July 2011 - 01:26 PM

Umm... I stock day trade.
I didn't say ignore profits, I said they don't predict future gains. Enron maybe a extreme case, but it's a perfect one. They cooked books for ages to stay afloat.

Congrats, you day trade. ...anyone can. I was referring to someone who actually knows what they're doing (i.e. a professional). If you're a day trader that puts *NO* value in past profits...LOL. Again, they're clearly not everything, but you can't say they're not relevant in predicting future profits. I have a degree in Economics, and my capstone paper was based on team values. That, to me, is more significant than day trading. I hate giving "credentials" online though. I could claim to have won a Nobel Prize in Economics, so I don't see how day trading makes your point.

You didn't say to ignore profits...yet they don't predict future gains? Then why can't we ignore them? And again, why didn't anyone think after the NHL took over Phoenix that they suddenly could make more than Detroit? That was a change.

Can changes alter profits? Yes. Obviously. It won't suddenly turn a sink-hole like St. Louis profitable though. Their market won't allow it.

But ultimately, clearly neither of us will change the other's mind - I'm not going to continue with this conversation. Continue ignoring the past performance of businesses and a market's potential. Plop an NFL team in Edmonton. Why not?

Edit: Fun fact from that previously mentioned research - Over the past decade about 36% of operating income of NHL franchises was solely predicted by the operating income of the previous year.

Edited by Zetts, 10 July 2011 - 01:35 PM.


#16 CaliWingsNut

CaliWingsNut

    PeeWee Bettman

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,744 posts
  • Location:Sonoma County, CA

Posted 10 July 2011 - 01:43 PM

Congrats, you day trade. ...anyone can. I was referring to someone who actually knows what they're doing (i.e. a professional). If you're a day trader that puts *NO* value in past profits...LOL. Again, they're clearly not everything, but you can't say they're not relevant in predicting future profits. I have a degree in Economics, and my capstone paper was based on team values. That, to me, is more significant than day trading. I hate giving "credentials" online though. I could claim to have won a Nobel Prize in Economics, so I don't see how day trading makes your point.

You didn't say to ignore profits...yet they don't predict future gains? Then why can't we ignore them? And again, why didn't anyone think after the NHL took over Phoenix that they suddenly could make more than Detroit? That was a change.

Can changes alter profits? Yes. Obviously. It won't suddenly turn a sink-hole like St. Louis profitable though. Their market won't allow it.

But ultimately, clearly neither of us will change the other's mind - I'm not going to continue with this conversation. Continue ignoring the past performance of businesses and a market's potential. Plop an NFL team in Edmonton. Why not?


Because what happened in the past, doesn't necessarily effect the future. What caused those profits (or losses) is much more important than just stating something had a profit. Maybe they invested in something that gave a short term gain, perhaps their best factory gets wiped out by a tsunami (another nearly happened to Japan yesterday). Maybe they are finishing paying off a loan as a result of recovering from that tsunami, and now will break free and have huge profits. Past profits do not predict future gains.

We're not too far off base, you just choose to assume I ignore profits altogether.

Figures don't lie, but liars sure figure. - Mark Twain


#17 Zetts

Zetts

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 968 posts
  • Location:Edmonton

Posted 10 July 2011 - 01:49 PM

Because what happened in the past, doesn't necessarily effect the future. What caused those profits (or losses) is much more important than just stating something had a profit. Maybe they invested in something that gave a short term gain, perhaps their best factory gets wiped out by a tsunami (another nearly happened to Japan yesterday). Maybe they are finishing paying off a loan as a result of recovering from that tsunami, and now will break free and have huge profits. Past profits do not predict future gains.

We're not too far off base, you just choose to assume I ignore profits altogether.

That's fair...and entirely true. I look at St. Louis's losses as a trend over a decade though. This is not an example of them being successful for a long time, then for one or two years losing money - it's an established trend that to me shows a deeper underlying cause as opposed to a sudden event like a tsunami.

However, you may be right. We seem to (at least somewhat) agree. We just come to different conclusions. I can't think of a time that a team lost money for a decade (ok, they gained 1m one year) and then became successful. The lockout did admittedly help St. Louis, but not enough.

#18 CaliWingsNut

CaliWingsNut

    PeeWee Bettman

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,744 posts
  • Location:Sonoma County, CA

Posted 10 July 2011 - 01:52 PM

-

Edited by CaliWingsNut, 10 July 2011 - 01:52 PM.

Figures don't lie, but liars sure figure. - Mark Twain


#19 Shoreline

Shoreline

    Panzerfaust

  • HoF Booster
  • 12,817 posts
  • Location:Brampton, ON

Posted 10 July 2011 - 02:17 PM

Value is subjective to speculation and inflation/time passing. Look at the ever-fluctuating prices of oil based on speculation, or land values, depending on area of country and economic status. a 3 story house in Michigan sells for less than a 3 story house here in Northwest Arkansas because the economy here is more robust.

The environment for the Blues has very little fluctuation as far as money goes.

Speculative buying is something done on the stock market, indeed, however, that has little to do with operating costs and the value of a team due to it's shrinking assets, something hardly comparable to supply and demand of a commodity like oil, and the manipulations that occur to artificially raise prices on that. Any person who is going to become owner and fork over the capital is going to consider how profitable the team has been, which includes the past, present, and future. Well, that is, any person who doesn't want to do what Hulsizer did which is have a nice golden parachute to land on when it fails and the exposed taxpayers have to subsidize it completely, which has been all too prevalent in American business of late.

Even so, no prospective owner is only going to look at how profitable the franchise is today, or even only look at last year's books. Since ownership is a long term commitment, they will likely be considering the Blues as a franchise since it's founding, to see how something fluctuates in more of a long term setting. Of course, to turn a franchise around and make it profitable, there are other things that the prospective owner must do, however, I don't see a rising cap as beneficial at all to a prospective buyer, except maybe a rabid one who doesn't care much about short term losses and the risk of long term (which goes into falling back on taxpayers).

#20 PrairieDawg

PrairieDawg

    3rd Line Checker

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 408 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids, MI

Posted 10 July 2011 - 03:53 PM

Blues fan succeeded in getting us all riled up.





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users