Jump to content

Leitao to St. John's?


Recommended Posts

As previously discussed on this board Depaul's support for their program is not very good. We have trouble getting our students to travel a few blocks to Savis how about a 30-45 min. drive to All State arena. He's probably underpaid. I wouldn't be shocked to see him go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Willie, Allstate Ins. Co. paid big $$$ to name Horizon

>Arena, please note. They will also be a big Olympic Games

>sponsor.

But that had nothing to do with DePaul. Savvis paid big money to name the Kiel - exactly what benefits does SLU see from that? Same deal with Depaul. DePaul is a university with a severe budget deficit (over $20 million), they just ran off their President (Minogue), have little fan support and is still paying off the Kennedy buy-out. If it comes down to money Leitao is gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not surprising on the rumors here ......

Leitao going back East? Heck he's from UConn .... Big East and all. That's a no-brainer. Does Meijo pack up and go home as well? Gonna be tough at RuPaul to replace Andre Brown and Holland. isn't it time for that Deiner to fade into the sunset as well?

The Manhattan guy at Miami? What have you done for me lately? Only made it to the Big Dance twice, beat Florida this year. Again .... no-brainer.

In another thread, I mentioned the Thad Motta syndrome. You go to the Dance you're hot. You win one, you're on fire. You pull a Thad Motta, Dan Patrick is mailing you shirts with "En Fuego" on the back. Until that time happens in a gym near you, Brad is cemented and safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somebody please step up who knows something about this deal as when I left St. Louis in '96 the building was still known as The Kiel Center. When it was changed to Savvis Center I did not even know who or what Savvis is.

I just went on their website and found out that they are a global networking company and one of their largest customers is the NYSE.

I asked about this deal when it came down, and the person who told me about it said that it was his understanding that they took a lot of stock instead of cash. I just looked and their stock is selling for a whopping $2.19 a share. Does anyone have any knowledge of what the deal for the naming rights really came down to, as my information would indicate that this wasn't such a hot deal at all. Of course, my opinion of Dollar Bill Laurie compared to his brother in law Stan Kroneke is like night and day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a pure investment standpoint we survived it too as we got out while the getting out was good. It was a nice ride while it lasted. By the way, Mrs Schasz was on a very good roll when the tech stocks were hot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Savvis paid $70 million for the naming rights over 20 years. The 1st 6 yrs in stock the rest in cash. The deal started in 2000 (SVVS was at $9) 2 more years of stock then 14 years of cash. (assuming they have the cash) There is a long history of companies paying big bucks for naming rights and then going under. (Enron field a recent example) Poor decisions on naming rights many times carryover to other bad business decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

before starting law school I used to day trade a bit. One of my philosophies was to avoid any company that bought naming rights to a stadium or arena as they all seemed to go under. Adelphia, Savvis, Enron, PSI.net. Of course, now all stadiums have bank or financial company names, because they got all the money when the dot.com bubble burst!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole Savvis and Savvis Center saga reiterates my earlier suggestion that Mr. Laurie's primary evidence of business acumen came from a part of his body other than his brain.

To correct Tarheel gently, Savvis was *never* a "hot stock," and in fact didn't do its IPO until 2000, after which its price went almost straight down. The fact that Laurie et al traded naming rights in return for a stock that went public at $24 and was trading at about $8 at the time of the rights deal, less than a year later, should add further insight into his business sense.

The deal was first reported as "stock options," but later SEC filings revealed that some or all of the first 6 years were covered by 750,000 shares of restricted stock. Laurie and his pals took a $5M write-off the first year of the naming rights deal, owing to the fact that the stock price had fallen to around $2 and said restricted stock had fallen in value from $7.3M to Savvis was declared technically insolvent (in terms of the naming rights deal)the following year and renegotiated terms such that it pays $1.25M a year until about 2006. The account of the renegotiation made it sound like Savvis would still get the original amount, but the Savvis CEO said in an interview last year, "Well, we didn't pay $70 million, because, remember, the first six years was in stock. And the stock was valued at $17, so it's not that many shares." (I'm thinking the $17 might be a typo, but in any event, again it sounds like ol' Bill was a much better guard than he is a trustee.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we are talking pure business acumen then Stan Kroenke has is all over his brother in law. I mean Laurie never ceases to amaze me with his poor business acumen, but then again he is still a billionaire for utering the simple I do words, so I will give him that much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lotsa fish = high need for cheap fish wrap = low cost of newspaper! And you have two to boot! You may be unhappy but I suspect lots of fishermen are not!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Blues, who have had one of the top-five payrolls in the NHL each of the last two seasons, showed cash losses of approximately $40 million in each of the past two seasons."

Source: P-D, 9/03. Bold added.

That still doesn't negate the appreciation implied in your data, but then again, those "estimated" values have some significant downsides, such as, if hockey tubes, what will that team value drop to, and who exactly is going to buy the Savvis Center (whose number 1 tenant would then be a no-show, and whose number 2 tenant is building its own arena)? I submit that a lot of that "value" is simply a variant on the Greater Fool theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If its fair to question the Forbes value of the franchise (and it probably is fair to do so) its certainly fair to wonder if the $40mm loss numbers are accurate. Sports owners are notorious for cooking their books (creating a holding company to run the parking lot etc.) so I seriously doubt the Blues are hemoragging that much. Don't forget hockey is going into a lock-out season and owners have every incentive possible to make their losses look as big as possible. Furthermore, would the $40mm include rent paid to Laurie for the Billikens, Disney on Ice, Rodeos and various concerts. I doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...