So $40+ mil in loans to make payroll = profitable?
Claiming the money you make off concessions, parking, advertising and merchandise markup as Non-Blackhawk revenue is disingenuous at best. They wouldn't make any of that money - and it's a boatload of money - if the Hawks didn't play hockey. If they were loans from a third party, I'd totally agree with you. They're not.
Why have the Wirtz's held on to the Blackhawks so long if the team doesn't rake in cash?
Whether the team makes money or not, nobody should give a damn. Wirtz Corp will never run out of money and if they actually were in debt, they can sell them and move on. No sympathy from me.
The Blackhawk organization itself may be losing money due to loans they need to repay to Wirtz Corp but Rocky is most definitely making a ton of money. Think about the Cup season, maybe the Hawks TEAM lost money but all that additional arena revenue (let's not forget they get all the alcohol profits) and its clear even if Rocky is losing money money is moving into, not out of, his pockets.
The Blackhawk organization itself may be losing money due to loans they need to repay to Wirtz Corp but Rocky is most definitely making a ton of money. Think about the Cup season, maybe the Hawks TEAM lost money but all that additional arena revenue (let's not forget they get all the alcohol profits) and its clear even if Rocky is losing money money is moving into, not out of, his pockets.
Exactly.
The team is positively churning out money. Debt from the years where no one showed up to games (for good reason) doesn't change that.
Wirtz is essentially paying back loans from himself. Sort of an odd situation.
I wouldn't use the term odd. He's using it to cry poor to journalists too lazy to do their homework.
I meant the fact that he's paying himself back for prior loans was odd. The crying to journalists is to be expected. Love Rocky but I can never forget what his last name is.
So $40+ mil in loans to make payroll = profitable?
When you look at JUST the Blackhawks' income, no, of course not. But when you take into consideration the fact that Wirtz owns 100% of the UC parking, provides the liquor, and receives income from EVERY event held at the United Center? Yes, absolutely.
When you look at JUST the Blackhawks' income, no, of course not. But when you take into consideration the fact that Wirtz owns 100% of the UC parking, provides the liquor, and receives income from EVERY event held at the United Center? Yes, absolutely.
He has never claimed poor. He has claimed the Hawks have lost money which is true.
He has stated he want all his companies to be in the black and be self sufficient. Anyone have a problem with that?
He has never claimed poor. He has claimed the Hawks have lost money which is true.
He has stated he want all his companies to be in the black and be self sufficient. Anyone have a problem with that?
I think you're missing the point. The Blackhawks are only in the red because of the way the accounting is handled and what actually counts as "revenue" for the team. If Rocky has his way, that will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future...
I seriously doubt the Blackhawks ever, even once, lost money. Bill Wirtz was many things, and a very shrewd business man was one of them.
Keep drinking that kool aid they provide though.
Oh I'm sure they actually did during the dark years. The cost to operate the UC during those games was 10x more than any revenue generated. No T.V. revenue either. This was especially true when Rocky decided to hike payroll but people were slower to return. Right now he is making up for some of those years.
That being said, it's not like Rocky as an individual was ever going to have financial issues. That's two different things.
Really? With all that debt. $ 40 mil for one year. Probably could multiply that by 8 to account for 2000-2008.
So if a company is $300 mil in debt and make $12 mil profit for 3 years, are they in the black?
Remember they held player salaries down for many years in that 2000-2008 time frame. Part of the reason for the fan exodus was the letting go of high priced stars. It's easy to justify losses in the 2000-2008 time period, but that was bad business on their part.
How much in the black were they from the late 80s to mid 90s? Does it balance out the lean years? How much revenue did Wirtz take in when he raised ticket prices nearly every season with the nice jump in price the last year of the Stadium? I don't know if the ledger balances but I'm sure the down period of recent history was preceded by an up period when things were rockin' at the Stadium and early years of the UC.
When things got lean, just as they started dumping star players I'm sure the business did suffer. They didn't have a model in place to support a half-empty UC. Remember no-tv for home games, they were paying for radio air-time, and the STH base had dwindled. Again, those were largely self-inflicted wounds.
It should be noted Wirtz and Reinsdorf co-own the UC, so those profits for non Hawk/Bull events get split, even if Wirtz holds 1 or 2 percent more.
Oh I'm sure they actually did during the dark years. The cost to operate the UC during those games was 10x more than any revenue generated. No T.V. revenue either. This was especially true when Rocky decided to hike payroll but people were slower to return. Right now he is making up for some of those years.
That being said, it's not like Rocky as an individual was ever going to have financial issues. That's two different things.
I think some fans and season ticket holders have a problem with Rocky trying to recoup the losses his father's business model may or may not have put on WirtzCorp. Again, with the "new math" accounting over on the West side it's difficult to ascertain what was really lost or gained even in the lean years.
I'm not sure what the costs were when the team was bad, I'm sure they used less food and Peter W. & Bismarck earned less concession revenues. It's easy to look at the half empty building and say the revenues didn't meet the expenses, but they still had some partnerships, some season-ticket holders, and those ancillary events. They did have tv revenue (just road tv revenue), Comcast/Fox Sports Net before that in that time frame). They actually co-own a piece of the local CSN now with the other major teams so that's a revenue piece now that wasn't there before, just as the 20 or so WGN over-the-air broadcasts are considered 3 hour commercials by McDonough.
When you look at JUST the Blackhawks' income, no, of course not. But when you take into consideration the fact that Wirtz owns 100% of the UC parking, provides the liquor, and receives income from EVERY event held at the United Center? Yes, absolutely.
Unless something has changed in the last year or so that isn't true. A third party handles the beverages, not Wirtz.
