View Single Post
11-12-2004, 09:14 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by me2
I doubt the Hawks make up 25% of the events held there. The United Centre is "among the busiest and most lucrative arena's in sports.". This then comes back to what percentage is hockey. Are the Bulls more popular? What other events are run (over 200 per year)?

So what is a fair percentage for the arena ownership to take?

What would be a fair rate to charge the Hawks on a per game basis for rink usage?

Little but we don't know how that part works. We don't know what Wirtz charges/earns in other areas without looking at the books. We can assume he splits the $15m two-way. If so he obviously thinks its fair that amount should be for arena ownership because that is what he pays the other the other 1/2 owner. If he thought that was unfair he'd filter more through the Hawks. Mind you it doesn't hurt the other owner is the Bulls owner and they are splitting the revenue cancelling each other out to some degree.

Again it prompts the question, what is a fair rate to charge if the Hawks were paying on a per game basis?

According to Forbes the Hawks made $9m last year. So Wirtz must be a great manager. There should be more Wirtz running this league not less. Then again $9m operating income (according to Forbes) isn't much of a return on an enterprise supposedly worth $178m. Poor old Bill Wirtz, he runs his team like a business, makes a profit (at least according to Forbes) and slagged by the fans as a cheapskate.
OK we agree that no income for the boxes on the URO's is fishy? I don't care what the percentage is, it is the fact there was 0 reported.

vanlady is offline