Forbes slams Levitt report
View Single Post
11-12-2004, 09:45 AM
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: TAMPA, FL
Originally Posted by
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.
View Public Profile
Visit rwilson99's homepage!
Find More Posts by rwilson99