HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Chicago Blackhawks
Notices

Toews, Wirtz, and Bettman

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-05-2012, 03:57 PM
  #151
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 20,090
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74
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.
Ahem.

DisgruntledHawkFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 04:03 PM
  #152
HawksFan74
Tread Lightly
 
HawksFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 14,806
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledHawkFan View Post
The revenue on running a parking lot has to be astronomical. like 95% profit.
There is an expense tied to it. Employees, security, sales tax and property tax. It's not 95% when nobody is going. Plus ticket prices were extremely low to draw people.

HawksFan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 04:04 PM
  #153
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martini View Post
Proof?

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
He did ask for help but from the private sector. He/they still used other people's money because it would have been very unlikely to get public financing because of the recession when they wanted to build. He was a sound businessman. He cried poor almost every year of his ownership. He claimed he lost 100 million on the team the last decade too.

The Hawks don't lose money, the only post losses according to the formulas franchises are bound too. No way in hell does a family retain ownership of the asset for so many decades if it was hemorrhaging money as the last two Wirtz claim. No way do they build a new stadium without public financing either. Chicago is a cash cow, it doesn't take much more than a marginally committed owner to do well in the market.

WWW did not run the business well, otherwise ticket prices would have been less than half of the comparable franchises. The radio rights were pretty much worthless too the last 10 years. I can't imagine how poor the corporate support was from 2003 until Rocky came into the show.

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 04:05 PM
  #154
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 20,090
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
There is an expense tied to it. Employees, security, sales tax and property tax. It's not 95% when nobody is going.
...

They make money.

DisgruntledHawkFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 04:08 PM
  #155
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,564
vCash: 500
While I don't think Wirtz is losing money I don't think it's as out of the question as some on here. Running a hockey team or any professional sports team requires a hell of a lot more money then most realize. For most of the people who do it it's done because they love the sport and not because it's something they can make money doing, especially a sport like hockey.

So while Wirtz might not be losing money, he might be, and he certainly isn't raking in the profit and claiming to be losing money.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 04:08 PM
  #156
Martini*
Gods Team
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,786
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?
108,000 during the winter compared to 70,000 households in the summer months when many are out instead of planted on a couch?

Broker in one of the worst Cub teams in a long time and the White Sox who nobody actually watches up until this year on account of, again, one of the worst Cub teams in a long time? Sample that with a playoff Hawk team?

Now, a decent comparison would be the Bulls who also play during the winter, but lets not bring them or their 6.0 average into the picture, comapring that to the 108,000 dedicated Hawk fans.

http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/bulls-...sportsnet.html

I mean, the Cubs and White Sox, amirite?

Martini* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 04:10 PM
  #157
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martini View Post
108,000 during the winter compared to 70,000 households in the summer months when many are out instead of planted on a couch?

Broker in one of the worst Cub teams in a long time and the White Sox who nobody actually watches up until this year on account of, again, one of the worst Cub teams in a long time? Sample that with a playoff Hawk team?

Now, a decent comparison would be the Bulls who also play during the winter, but lets not bring them or their 6.0 average into the picture, comapring that to the 108,000 dedicated Hawk fans.

http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/bulls-...sportsnet.html

I mean, the Cubs and White Sox, amirite?
SO all your proving is that the NBA is a more popular sport then the NHL.

Wow maybe you can also prove to me water is wet and the sky is blue and many other facts that everyone already knows to be true.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 04:11 PM
  #158
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
There is an expense tied to it. Employees, security, sales tax and property tax. It's not 95% when nobody is going. Plus ticket prices were extremely low to draw people.
He also gets the parking money from every event at the UC and then only has to claim a marginal part of that to the league. Wirtz corp gets their piece no matter what because they own 50% of the lot, then the Hawks get their piece.

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 04:12 PM
  #159
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 20,090
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
While I don't think Wirtz is losing money I don't think it's as out of the question as some on here. Running a hockey team or any professional sports team requires a hell of a lot more money then most realize. For most of the people who do it it's done because they love the sport and not because it's something they can make money doing, especially a sport like hockey.

So while Wirtz might not be losing money, he might be, and he certainly isn't raking in the profit and claiming to be losing money.
Not sure if serious...

DisgruntledHawkFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 04:13 PM
  #160
HawksFan74
Tread Lightly
 
HawksFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 14,806
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledHawkFan View Post
...

They make money.
Nobody knows for sure. Last year, sure but during the dark years. Who is to say? We know Phoenix can not survive on such attendance numbers.

HawksFan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 04:15 PM
  #161
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 20,090
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
Nobody knows for sure. Last year, sure but during the dark years. Who is to say? We know Phoenix can not survive on such attendance numbers.
Entirely because they don't own there arena.

DisgruntledHawkFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 04:21 PM
  #162
HawksFan74
Tread Lightly
 
HawksFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 14,806
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledHawkFan View Post
Entirely because they don't own there arena.
Owning the arena is potentially a larger expense drag if it's not doing well. Lease it, own it... depends on the deal and most of if you're drawing fans.

HawksFan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 04:24 PM
  #163
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledHawkFan View Post
Entirely because they don't own there arena.
Beat me to it.

Arena ownership allows the franchise owner to make a killing indirectly of the hockey team through other sports, service contracts, concerts, naming rights, etc. Wirtz gets 50% of everything that goes through the door, the Hawks get a smaller percentage of that. PHX is paid to run the arena, but they don't see money on the other events outside of hockey.

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 04:28 PM
  #164
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 20,090
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
Owning the arena is potentially a larger expense drag if it's not doing well. Lease it, own it... depends on the deal and most of if you're drawing fans.
No. You're wrong. That's all I'll say.

DisgruntledHawkFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 04:29 PM
  #165
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 21,710
vCash: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martini View Post
Proof?
Provide some of your own for a change. Asking me for proof is about akin to asking someone for proof that water's wet. Uh.... it's pretty common knowledge, dude, and there have been countless articles and books written about the troubles that the Blackhawks faced under the old regime.

Quote:
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......
They're not scraps compared to the rest of the league, as the website indicated. Plus, as others have pointed out, the Hawks' measly 100,000 is about on par with the Cubs and Sox, if not higher. Are you suggesting that their TV contracts are a bad idea, too?

And, again.... how is not making money off of TV better then making money on TV?

Quote:
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.
So you have to go back 15-20 years for when Dollar Bill's team was doing well?

Good show. What about the late 90s and 00's when the team drew nothing and weren't even as big as an afterthought in the city?

Quote:
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?
Again, proof please. You claiming that he somehow made money, despite very public admissions that the Wirtz empire had to repeatedly loan money to the team to even make payroll, doesn't cut it.

No Fun Shogun is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 04:36 PM
  #166
massivegoonery
Registered User
 
massivegoonery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 11,244
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
How can differentiate between STH experiences now and then if you no longer have them? Having a good experience with a ticket rep is not indicative of a better strategy. When Bill was around, there was a lot less of us so obviously easier to service.
I gave them up last year.

massivegoonery is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 04:43 PM
  #167
HawksFan74
Tread Lightly
 
HawksFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 14,806
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledHawkFan View Post
No. You're wrong. That's all I'll say.
We really have no idea unless the books are open. Stating that absolutely never lost money is wrong .

HawksFan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 04:54 PM
  #168
DisgruntledHawkFan
Moderator
 
DisgruntledHawkFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 20,090
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DisgruntledHawkFan
Which I never did. Saying I doubt - personal belief - and saying the Hawks absolutely were in the black every year are two different things.

Just don't bring up "loans". Its just smoke and mirrors.

DisgruntledHawkFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 04:55 PM
  #169
HawksFan74
Tread Lightly
 
HawksFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 14,806
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledHawkFan View Post
Which I never did. Saying I doubt - personal belief - and saying the Hawks absolutely were in the black every year are two different things.

Just don't bring up "loans". Its just smoke and mirrors.
Just because Rocky has other money and other sources of income doesn't change the fact that the Hawks need to be loaned money to operate.

HawksFan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 05:20 PM
  #170
madgoat33
Registered User
 
madgoat33's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11,756
vCash: 500
when you're buying booze from yourself and calling it an expense it doesn't change his overall bottom line.

madgoat33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 05:22 PM
  #171
HawksFan74
Tread Lightly
 
HawksFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 14,806
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by massivegoonery View Post
I gave them up last year.
Why? Was it cost? Was your experience selling tickets on the exchange?

HawksFan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 05:23 PM
  #172
HawksFan74
Tread Lightly
 
HawksFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 14,806
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by madgoat33 View Post
when you're buying booze from yourself and calling it an expense it doesn't change his overall bottom line.
You're not going to sell enough booze to cover anything with 5,000 people in the arena.

HawksFan74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 05:29 PM
  #173
madgoat33
Registered User
 
madgoat33's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11,756
vCash: 500
when are there only 5000 people inthe arena?

besides, this is chicago and if attendance did drop to 5000, it would be 5000 die hards and we enjoy our booze

madgoat33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 05:29 PM
  #174
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 22,547
vCash: 1948
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
You're not going to sell enough booze to cover anything with 5,000 people in the arena.
And if you could, that team/situation would have been it.

coldsteelonice84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 05:31 PM
  #175
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 22,547
vCash: 1948
Quote:
Originally Posted by madgoat33 View Post
when are there only 5000 people inthe arena?

besides, this is chicago and if attendance did drop to 5000, it would be 5000 die hards and we enjoy our booze
The Hawks would always trump attendance up to 12,000 or more but the place was empty.

coldsteelonice84 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 09:11 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.