|
>saying that the Grizz almost went to St Louis instead of
>Memphis doesn't tell me shit....
>
>you explained it....which from my original post was all I was
>asking for.....
never been a big defender of thatruth but he was one of a couple guys who laid it out. he posted the links with detailed info and others said the bottom line, which was that there was a deal but the league squashed it.
>but from your explanation, it wasn't about Stern and the NBA
>choosing Memphis over St Louis....like both cities have plans,
>and they choose one over the other.... It's a matter of Stern
>blocking the attempt to have the Grizzlies move from Vancouver
>to St Louis under new management...... and when the new
>management in Vancouver failed to revitalize the team, then
>Memphis gets the team under new ownership..
>
>is that correct?
right, it wasn't like stern said the team is not moving to st louis, it's moving to memphis. they were separate incidents. first he said the team wasn't moving at all when they were set to move to st louis. then later, when that situation became untenable, heisley did not look at st louis. he looked at seven other sights. now, that is not to say that st louis came in 8th place in a seven-horse race. that would undermine the business sense of the deal. with the STL group owning the arena and also the other team that shared it, there would have been little sense moving to STL for heisley. the ownership and the city were a package deal with STL and the league had already pushed them out the door.
>if so, I'm pretty sure Stern probably regretted initially
>blocking St Louis to stay in Vancouver..... but in the end it
>worked out pretty well with Memphis....
not sure how well it worked out. memphis was 24th in avg attendance this year, very low 90s in attendance percentage. it's worked out OK. not sure how well it would have worked out in STL or what stern thinks but the city was very viable and it was unfair to squash the deal. i think stern didn't want a franchise moving, period, he probably didn't appreciate the initial deal either where the previous owner leveraged an offer from vancouver investors to drive up the STL bid and get them to include the bonus. that's just business though. what the NBA did was outright BS when you consider that they blocked a legit deal to avoid a move, only to have the team move a short while later anyway.
>I'm curious if St Louis made any efforts after Stern stopped
>the Grizzlies.... Did they try again with them after the new
>ownership in Vancouver was failing, or did that sour them on
>tryin again with the NBA?
see above, there were six other cities than memphis (anaheim, vegas, louisville, new orleans, some others that i am forgetting) and i do not believe STL was among them. now, had the team been up *for sale* again, i have little doubt that STL would have been back in the mix, but with the arena rights owned by another party it was not really feasible for heisley to view them as a potential destination. big revenue shortfall there versus the other cities, where he would have been the primary tenant in all but one (which is also why anaheim fell off the map very quickly in the process).
>how about prior to that when Vancouver and Toronto got
>teams..... or later with New Orleans, Charlotte.... OKC....
>Sacramento's issues...
the laurie group, like many NHL owners in the 2000s, fell into financial trouble, meanwhile the cost of NBA ownership was rising. when they were set to purchase the team, it would have been under $150M all in (purchase plus relocation bonus). that obviously increased considerably. consider also that charlotte was an expansion franchise, which is a bit different ball game (both financially and in terms of league approval). KC was also nearby and putting together a stronger bid for everything that has happened since the mid 2000s (they had a new arena). laurie also sold the blues around that time and a pretty half-assed ownership group with limited ambition (Checketts) took over. they did not have designs on an NBA team but they did hold the arena rights. the blues have since sold again and now are much more stable financially thanks to both wealthier ownership than before and a team that actually puts butts in seats.
so the time period you are talking about is one where Laurie was basically priced out of the market to buy a team but his status as the primary tenants scared off other owners looking to relocate but retain their team. then a cash-poor ownership group takes over a bad team that doesn't fill the arena. the current blues/scotttrade center ownership group took over about five years ago. not much movement in the NBA since then. i do not know if they have NBA ambitions but i doubt the league is keen on a 20+ year old arena (part of why they didn't want Sac to move to Anaheim, FYI).
my point is that there are a number of factors here, you're looking at it like this is the league expanding and just looking at what city is most viable. you have way more considerations than that in place.
>were there any efforts or push in St Louis to get involved in
>any of those situations, or did the dealings with Stern and
>the Grizzlies basically end any efforts to get an NBA team....
>because I honestly wouldn't blame them if it did....
i think it let them know where they stood and from there the two sides only grew further apart. i don't think it was just being jilted, it was just recognizing that the situation didn't offer a fit to the city or to the league, let alone both. if a team fell in their lap, sure, but how often does that happen?
>again, I was unaware of what happened regarding the
>Grizzlies...which is why I asked in the first place.... I
>stand by saying that I don't believe St Louis would be a good
>fit for the NBA, for the reasons I stated...but if there are
>other situations I'm unaware of I am curious...
>
>like with Walter Payton's group trying to get an NFL team when
>they were up for expansion.... during times with the NBA, did
>St Louis have a group together like that?
well like i said in the time period we are talking about there has only been one expansion team. that was charlotte and the league was pretty set on returning the NBA to charlotte, provided a new arena was in the works (not unlike their current fixation with seattle, but nothing is getting done on the city's side). there were competing ownership groups, but to my knowledge there was little or no competition in terms of the site. during that time period, the only teams that relocated were seattle and the original charlotte franchise. shinn may have looked at STL, someone else can comment on that, but i doubt he looked far with the opportunity to be the primary tenant in NO. clay bennett was intent on OKC from the start. again the ownership of the blues/arena has also changed hands twice in the time period we are talking about, so that and increasing costs to get in on any pro team, particularly an NBA team, pretty well precluded another legitimate effort.
And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
Okay Sports
