View Single Post
11-12-2004, 08:45 AM
Registered User
rwilson99's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: TAMPA, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 1,910
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by me2
It is irrelevant why he owns 50%. He could see the Blackhawks to Portland and still keep 50% share. He is entitled to try and make some money off his 50% ownership of the rink, Hawks or no Hawks.

Lets flip this around. If he makes $7.5m from his half of the $15m this year and there are ZERO hawks games, does that prove the Hawks contributed no net benefit to his rink earnings and therefore deserve 0% of that $7.5m. If on the other hand that $15m falls to $12m due lack of Hawks games, his half is $6m they you can argue the Hawks contribute $1.5m and deserve a share of that $1.5m.

If own a chain of cinemas and then decide to make a movie, should I give all of the profits from the cinemas to the stars of the movie I made?
You've actually stumbled across something here.

If suite revenue was $15M with the Hawks and now $12M without, holding additional events constant with 03-04, it is clear that $3 Million is hockey revenue.

Any share of that revenue paid to other arena owners is RENT, and should not factor in hockey revenue calculations.

rwilson99 is offline