HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Chicago Blackhawks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Toews, Wirtz, and Bettman

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-05-2012, 02:48 PM
  #126
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 22,079
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
As long as they spend money on the team, keep the games on TV, and retain the talent, I can't complain that much. Although ticket prices are getting ridiculous.
I dont begrudge anyone making money. Just don't blow smoke up my ass and tell me that's why tix have doubled in price.

DisgruntledHawkFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 02:49 PM
  #127
Chris Hansen
VERSTEEG REDEMPTION
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledHawkFan View Post
I dont begrudge anyone making money. Just don't blow smoke up my ass and tell me that's why tix have doubled in price.
Fair enough. I never took those claims seriously enough to care about them - they were obvious crap from the beginning.

Chris Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 02:51 PM
  #128
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 22,079
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
I'm not disregarding those as revenue streams in the least bit. Doesn't change the fact that having those doesn't really do you nearly as much when your barn's only half full.

Those are worth much, much more now that the Hawks pack the house, for obvious reasons.



I admit that it's crap, but I'll take a stupid fib like that over the previous regime having their heads up their keisters on just about everything.
We're not really disagreeing. My contention is with those that believes the Blackhawks as a whole are losing money.

Team is spending money, and that's all I care about. Im just not drinking the saint rocky kool-aid.

DisgruntledHawkFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 02:52 PM
  #129
Martini*
Gods Team
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan View Post
TV production of sports is dirt cheap, one of the reasons the networks love it so much...
Dirt cheap compared to what? What ad revenue is being made when the Hawks ratings are abysmal and the only offers being made are (speculative) take it or leave it kinds? This isnt Jersey Shore which MTV can charge a fortune for advertisement because there are ratings for that garbage to back up that people actually watch it while the Hawks are pulling down feeble digits?

Quote:
Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan View Post
But what do I know, I only studied media in college. Can't find a job in it
Um......ok?

Martini* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 02:53 PM
  #130
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 22,079
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
Fair enough. I never took those claims seriously enough to care about them - they were obvious crap from the beginning.
And yet a couple times a year im in an argument about how Chicago isn't profitable.

DisgruntledHawkFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 02:54 PM
  #131
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: Fiji
Posts: 25,899
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledHawkFan View Post
We're not really disagreeing. My contention is with those that believes the Blackhawks as a whole are losing money.

Team is spending money, and that's all I care about. Im just not drinking the saint rocky kool-aid.
True, but remember I specifically said that Rocky wasn't the second coming or anything like that. Just that he's a better owner than his daddy, which I figured should be the most obvious statement to make, other than water is usually wet.

I have zero doubt that the team lost money under Bill and it may have taken a year or two to turn to profitability under Rocky, but no way that they've been losing money since the Stanley Cup season, and probably not since their conference championship run the year prior, especially with what they got out of the Winter Classic that year from primary and secondary revenue streams.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledHawkFan View Post
And yet a couple times a year im in an argument about how Chicago isn't profitable.
If Rocky Wirtz had a dime for every time someone made an idiotic argument on the internet, even he couldn't claim he was losing money.

No Fun Shogun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 02:56 PM
  #132
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 22,079
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martini View Post
Dirt cheap compared to what? What ad revenue is being made when the Hawks ratings are abysmal and the only offers being made are (speculative) take it or leave it kinds? This isnt Jersey Shore which MTV can charge a fortune for advertisement because there are ratings for that garbage to back up that people actually watch it while the Hawks are pulling down feeble digits?


Um......ok?
Since we're speculating and stating it as fact to support our side, comcast pays Rocky eleventy billion dollars to broadcast Hawks games.

DisgruntledHawkFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 02:59 PM
  #133
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 22,079
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
True, but remember I specifically said that Rocky wasn't the second coming or anything like that. Just that he's a better owner than his daddy, which I figured should be the most obvious statement to make, other than water is usually wet.

I have zero doubt that the team lost money under Bill and it may have taken a year or two to turn to profitability under Rocky, but no way that they've been losing money since the Stanley Cup season, and probably not since their conference championship run the year prior, especially with what they got out of the Winter Classic that year from primary and secondary revenue streams.



If Rocky Wirtz had a dime for every time someone made an idiotic argument on the internet, even he couldn't claim he was losing money.
And there we disagree. Id be shocked if the Hawks ever had an honest season in the red.

DisgruntledHawkFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 02:59 PM
  #134
Chris Hansen
VERSTEEG REDEMPTION
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledHawkFan View Post
Since we're speculating and stating it as fact to support our side, comcast pays Rocky eleventy billion dollars to broadcast Hawks games.
Thankfully I finished my drink a few minutes ago, or it would've been all over my computer

Chris Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 03:05 PM
  #135
IU Hawks fan
They call me 'IU'
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 18,909
vCash: 772
Quote:
Dirt cheap compared to what? What ad revenue is being made when the Hawks ratings are abysmal and the only offers being made are (speculative) take it or leave it kinds?
Ok 1 - Hawks ratings aren't abysmal, as a link already shows. Last year's ratings were better than this years Sox and Cubs ratings on CSN.
2 - Sports are literally the CHEAPEST thing a TV network can produce.
3 - What offers are you talking about? I don't think you have any understanding of the sports media business. WGN couldn't wait to get a piece of the Hawks, and they own 20% of Comcast Sports Net, so they aren't 'getting offers' for that or anything.


Last edited by IU Hawks fan: 10-05-2012 at 03:10 PM.
IU Hawks fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 03:09 PM
  #136
Martini*
Gods Team
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
He made a very limited number of people pay money, and as a result the Blackhawks were near-constantly deep in the red according to essentially every report that's even been done of the old regime.
Proof?
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
And what are you talking about? Hawks averaged over 100,000 viewers for their local broadcasts last year, which was good for second in the league when it comes to local television ratings in the United States (http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/J...N-ratings.aspx) and, guess what, it draws more fans in and helps drive ticket prices up, making more money for the team.
100,000? Those are scraps. The UC seats how many? a quarter of that amount? This is the day and age of fast results, a Bulls pre season game gets more viewers then the Hawks only proves that the one thing Wirtz was right about was that the only fans of the Hawks go to the games. With those numbers, you show exactly that hockey is nothing but a niche sport.

100,000......


Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
So.... even if the Hawks got bad ratings, which they don't, you admit that getting a little would be better than getting nothing and yet you still think that Bill was right to take nothing and Rocky was wrong to take something?
Um, in the 80/90's when the Hawks were selling out the stadium? Different time and Wirtz was well in his right to protect his STH's. It was his team, he never cried poor, and last time I checked, built a huge arena without asking for help. Obviously he was doing something right catering to himself. How is that a fault? He looked out for his best interests. Why shouldnt he when he had a better grasp of the entire situation in Chicago in terms of interest better then many, and thats with the staggering 100,000 average viewers in a city of 9.8 million.

Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
TV ratings are big, attendance is up in a huge way, ticket prices have increased, merchandise sales are almost assuredly also up, the parent company is no longer throwing millions upon millions of dollars at the team to keep them afloat, and yet.... somehow you're claiming that Dollar Bill ran the team better?
He did. He didnt have to deal with half of the head ache yet still made money. Less is more with the end result being his pocket stayed lined with green. How is that not better?

Martini* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 03:13 PM
  #137
Chris Hansen
VERSTEEG REDEMPTION
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,200
vCash: 500
It is amusing that you keep asking for proof while giving absolutely none of your own.

1. Make blanket statement about Hawks having low TV ratings.
2. Be presented with facts showing that their TV ratings are the second best of all NHL teams.
3. Act as if those ratings don't matter anymore since they aren't conducive to your misguided (and simply wrong) point of view.
4. Ask "Proof? " condescendingly as if you haven't been fabricating at random throughout this entire discussion.

Chris Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 03:20 PM
  #138
Martini*
Gods Team
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan View Post
Ok 1 - Hawks ratings aren't abysmal, as a link already shows.
100,000 viewers in a city of 9.8 million? Like, really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan View Post
Last year's ratings were better than this years Sox and Cubs ratings on CSN.
http://www.shermanreport.com/white-s...ting-163-2008/
Um, no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan View Post
2 - Sports are literally the CHEAPEST thing a TV network can produce.
Compared to, say, a reality TV program, which is the cheapest thing a TV network can produce? I mean, billions, or in the case of the NHL, millions of dollars in broadcasting rights still in pocket and all.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan View Post
3 - What offers are you talking about? I don't think you have any understanding of the sports media business. WGN couldn't wait to get a piece of the Hawks, and they own 20% of Comcast Sports Net, so they aren't 'getting offers' for that or anything.
Um, advertising?

I mean, you did say sports, with its licensing and broadcasting rights putting a network in the hole before it even turns on its cameras for the game is cheaper then pulling out a cheap camera and filming reality TV, amirite?

Martini* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 03:23 PM
  #139
Chris Hansen
VERSTEEG REDEMPTION
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martini View Post
100,000 viewers in a city of 9.8 million? Like, really?
http://www.shermanreport.com/white-s...ting-163-2008/
Um, no.
I'm feeling bad for you at this point, man. Do you understand the problem with using this article as evidence? It's really easy, I'll give you a few tries if you want.

Chris Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 03:25 PM
  #140
Martini*
Gods Team
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
It is amusing that you keep asking for proof while giving absolutely none of your own.
What proof would you like? That many here want to say Wirtz didnt know how to run a hockey team with his methods yet still owned the team for decades?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
1. Make blanket statement about Hawks having low TV ratings.
100,000 in a city of 9.8 million, end of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
2. Be presented with facts showing that their TV ratings are the second best of all NHL teams.
Which is like finishing second in a race that ended two months before. Compare it to the big three sports.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
3. Act as if those ratings don't matter anymore since they aren't conducive to your misguided (and simply wrong) point of view.
Which is that Wirtz was right all along about the Chicago market?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hansen View Post
4. Ask "Proof? " condescendingly as if you haven't been fabricating at random throughout this entire discussion.
I have asked where home games on TV suddenly increase interest in sports. Where is this proof other then speculation and opinion?

Martini* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 03:27 PM
  #141
IU Hawks fan
They call me 'IU'
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 18,909
vCash: 772
Why did he post an article that shows half of what I already pointed out, that Hawks ratings were better than Cubs/Sox ratings?

IU Hawks fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 03:28 PM
  #142
Chris Hansen
VERSTEEG REDEMPTION
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan View Post
Why did he post an article that shows half of what I already pointed out, that Hawks ratings were better than Cubs/Sox ratings?
Entertaining, right?

Chris Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 03:29 PM
  #143
Atomic Punk
Mean Streets
 
Atomic Punk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Panama
Country: United States
Posts: 8,904
vCash: 50
McD is good at marketing and spending other people's money to put butts in the seats. Rocky is a better owner than his father. Let's agree on that and move on so we don;t have any more diatribe posts.

Atomic Punk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 03:29 PM
  #144
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 22,079
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martini View Post
Which is like finishing second in a race that ended two months before. Compare it to the big three sports.
So because the Hawks didn't make as much as the Bears, they obviously were in the red. Gotcha.

DisgruntledHawkFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 03:30 PM
  #145
UsernameWasTaken
Let's Go Blue Jays!
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,673
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledHawkFan View Post
So because the Hawks didn't make as much as the Bears, they obviously were in the red. Gotcha.
Unfortunately, I think you understand his logic correctly

UsernameWasTaken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 03:40 PM
  #146
HawksFan74
Tread Lightly
 
HawksFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 15,339
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledHawkFan View Post
And there we disagree. Id be shocked if the Hawks ever had an honest season in the red.
You don't take out loans to cover expenses if you're making money. I think it probably happened in the transition to Rocky. Payroll took a huge spike but the attendance numbers were not there to support it. Also, advertising was pretty cheap back then. There has been some hefty increases since the cup for board and tv advertising with the Hawks.

HawksFan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 03:41 PM
  #147
HawksFan74
Tread Lightly
 
HawksFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 15,339
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledHawkFan View Post
Disregarding the arena rights, parking, and concessions as team revenue is disingenuous at best. Nobody would buy the Hawks without Wirtz' share in the UC being a part of the deal.
Everything you list there has an expense tied to it. Doesn't mean much when nobody is showing up. What do you think it cost to run the U.C. on a nightly basis?

HawksFan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 03:46 PM
  #148
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 22,079
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
You don't take out loans to cover expenses if you're making money. I think it probably happened in the transition to Rocky. Payroll took a huge spike but the attendance numbers were not there to support it. Also, advertising was pretty cheap back then. There has been some hefty increases since the cup for board and tv advertising with the Hawks.
You don't take out loans from outside companies to cover expenses if you're making money. Taking a 5 spot fro your right pocket to your left is something else entirely.

DisgruntledHawkFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 03:51 PM
  #149
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 22,079
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
Everything you list there has an expense tied to it. Doesn't mean much when nobody is showing up. What do you think it cost to run the U.C. on a nightly basis?
The revenue on running a parking lot has to be astronomical. like 95% profit.

DisgruntledHawkFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 03:52 PM
  #150
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,629
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martini View Post
Proof?
I love the guy who is spouting on with random facts with no proof is now the one demanding proof from other people.

It's the ultimate troll move.

They blast your argument demanding facts and then give no facts of their own while making ridiculous claims and their proof is that they are smarter and know more then any of us.

AWESOME!

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:26 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.