View Single Post
Old
10-06-2012, 02:42 PM
  #199
Martini*
Gods Team
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
Okay, you're just being nonsensical at this point. In the course of your posts, you've defended the elder Wirtz for not letting Hawks games be on TV because it wouldn't make enough money to make it worthwhile and yet still admitted that making some money off TV is better than nothing (not to mention putting an unnecessary hassle on fans that actually want to follow the team on TV),
I notice the spin doctoring, yet see thinly veiled assumptions to what was actually said.

Bill Wirtz didnt have to put home games on TV. He protected his season ticket holders who were his bread and butter in his business model. He didnt have the production costs associated with broadcasting home games and focused on keeping costs low for tickets so, thru actually going to the games, he could increase his fanbase. It worked, like it or not, during the 80's and early 90's until, which I have stated countless times, the internet exploded. Now, this is only home games, not away games which he did put on TV, and radio which the games were on and Wirtz paid for out of his own pocket, purchasing the air time outright until McD came into the fold. I have asked for proof that suddenly with home games on TV, where is this increased fanbase, and have been told that 108,000 viewers, a quarter of the UC, is a sudden step up and that the casual fan is now watching home games on TV and the outpouring of financial justification just by the mere token of putting home games on televsion has placed the beloved Blackhawks on the same level as the Cubs, who had posssibly fielded one of the weakest teams in the last decade this year without looking at how the Bulls, another winter sport and the Hawks direct competition for the casual fans hard earned dollar, not only have been honestly selling out the UC without padded stats to pacify advertising, but have also been drawing TV ratings that are almost triple what the Hawks can produce.

Now, I dont believe in revisionist history, but will indulge in it just this once to prove a point. A point that might be hard for some here , but as a strong person, will guide the masses to the all illuminating light of reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
complained about Hawks local TV ratings despite being on par if not higher than two more popular teams in Chicago just because they're not as popular as two other more popular teams,
Huh? I read that twice and still dont understand.

The simple fact that the Hawk ratings, 108,000 viewers is better then a horrible Cub team that usually draws 7.0's or the White Sox who nobody watches, means what, exactly?

That the Cubs are bad? Yes. That the possibility of it ever happening again? Most definately not. There isnt one person in the city of Chicago who will put the Hawks over the Cubs as a more viable team in terms of popularity and thats with McD running the marketing department. Throw out the simple fact that getting people to actually watch TV during the summer months is hard enough will only prove just how strong the Cubs are and that one year, a year in which they are horrible, no less, is just a simple mirage and wont keep advertisers from running to the Cubs brand with money in hand to advert while they are on TV. You cannot say the same thing about the Hawks. Not now and thats with winning the Cup, and if they do get somebody interested, that same prospective client wants either Toews or Kane while McD speculatively puts a Hawks jersey on them.

The Bulls? You know, that team that plays the same winter months that the Hawks do, put up triple the TV ratings. Lets not talk about them because the only excuse anybody could provide is that they are more popular even with, if reading some of the threads here in this forum, many want to proclaim the Hawks as a more popular team. I swear, I keep forgeting those 108,000 viewers, silly me. Putting the onus upon the fact that the Hawks, and hockey in general, is a niche sport that has limited, repeat, very limited gains in terms of popularity in the city of Chicago, and the fact that I see that the glass isnt half empty or half full, but just a glass with a small crack in it that will once in a while get half full, only to trickle out little by little just means I dont see the growth of hockey in the city of Chicago. Not gonna happen. Theres more options out there for the casual fans time and money. Wirtz saw this, Bill, and placed his priority on protecting his season ticket holders and shouldnt be villianized for doing what he thought was right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
provided no evidence to back up any of your claims while requiring other people to do the legwork for you for universally agreed upon facts,
The only "facts" anybody has provided in this thread is;

1. Bill Wirtz didnt put home games on TV
2. The Hawks average 108,000 fans watching games on TV
3. Rocky Wirtz is crying poor
4. The NHL is locked out with every owner crying poor

What hasnt be documented, is just how strong are those home game ratings compared to away games, what impact home games on TV have provided the Blackhawks in terms of popularity when compared to their main rival in the winter, the Bulls, they fall flat, and with all thses 108,000 fans on top of a sold out UC with patches of empty seats here and there, why in gods name is Rocky Wirtz crying poor?
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
likened to the current ownership fibbing about losing money
Wait, Rocky is lying about losing money?
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
to the previous ownership actually losing money in droves due to lacking a TV contract
There has always been a national TV contract for the NHL. What are you talking about? Wirtz put away games on that were produced by another network and just purchased the rights and the air time. He was making stable money off of that exchange. How is that bad when he didnt have to share any revenue with anybody outside of purchasing air time, which was dirt cheap, and paying for a already produced signal that he surely got a tremendous discount from, speculatively, of course?
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
and drawing for **** at the gate with significantly lower ticket prices than now,
When they were garbage? Like the Cubs right now? How about when they were good, thru the 80's and early 90's?
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
and completely ignored how much more popular the Blackhawks have gotten over the past several years largely due the Rocky and McD abandoning the idiotic policies of Dollar Bill.
Where is this popularity? 108,000 viewers? It remains to be seen if the Hawks can keep this momentum, not popularity, but momentum, positive momentum, in tact when the wheels do indeed fall off and they are put in a position of rebuilding. There is a shroud of uncertainty surrounding this franchise and until seen, nobody can do nothing but speculate. But it sure must feel good pointing to a team built to contend and suddenly proclaiming just how popular a team is and pointing to low TV ratings for a cities most iconic franchise while they are, you know, rebuilding.

Now, I can go as far as say the Hawks are nothing but the flavour of the day right now in Chicago and not be too far off with such a statement. But the reality is, they are indeed a popular flavor, like a Culvers flavor of the day, that when all the winning stops and not even bad, but mediocrity suddenly starts to fester, they will be replaced on the bill board soon enough. And this "popularity" is nothing compared to the early 80's, when Wirtz wasnt showing home games on TV. simplier time perhaps....
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
Nothing you're saying makes sense, and a lot of what you're saying is incredibly inconsistent, too.
Huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
Um, ok? First off, its a news article and should be taken with a grain of salt.
Second, one of the first lines in this article states, sadly;
"Exactly how much money was lost is something team executives will not discuss."
So, right there, we are looking only one way, Tribune article with whom McD, who is quoted in said article, worked for for years with the disclaimer that they cannot talk about financial losses yet have no problem quoting another article from another paper about the losses Bill Wirtz suppossedly made. So proof in an article, from the Tribune no less, whom McD worked for for years, without any actual open book numbers to actually look at is just a puff piece and not actual proof.

Now, actual numbers would be proof, but then.....

Now, as a casual person, I have a hard time comprehending how losses of the fisical year were off limits yet there was no problem with Melissa Harris using an article from another paper to pronounce Bill's financial hardships. Just doesnt make sense, but thats just me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
Business and other organizational ineptitude leading the Hawks to be named the worst franchise in all sports (opinion, of course):
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...417_blackhawks
Like you stated, opinion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/sp...irtz.html?_r=0

The transformation of the Hawks from a joke to a profitable (albeit lying about said profits) team with a championship under their team was downright meteoric. The Hawks are going to be pointed at for years as the premier example of a sports franchise managing to turn things around in astonishingly fast fashion. Ignoring that is just laughable.
Where, again, is this profit when Rocky is crying poor, again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
The Hawks are #5 in Chicago right now..... a few years ago, they probably weren't even in the top 20 most popular teams in any sport in their own town. Heck, the freaking AHL Wolves were more popular than the Hawks.
The Wolves were never more popular then the Hawks.

So again, where is this proof?

Martini* is offline   Reply With Quote