Blackhawks Raise Ticket Prices, Claim Income Loss

Mellissa Harris of the Chicago Tribune has an article in which Blackhawks ownership says they'll raise season ticket prices an average of 20 percent because the club is still not profitable. Tell us what you think in the comments.

almost 2 years ago J.J. from Kansas 7 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

There were a few of things that stood out to me in this article.

First, the main issue is that since the Hawks are privately-owned, there’s no way to look at their books unless they allow access. Given that we are headed towards potential re-negotiating of the CBA, I’d be surprised if the Hawks allow that to happen. We are all aware of the creative accounting that can be done to show that a company is profitable when they are not, or vice versa. Perhaps this is the case here. However, the fact that Rocky talks about borrowing capital (cash) is what is really disconcerting if I’m a Hawks fan. It’s one thing to “cook” the books; it’s quite another to actually have to borrow money to keep your company in business.

I’d be curious to know who owns the United Center. Given that the Wirtz family has many different companies under their “name”, it could be possible that the UC is making a ton of money while the Hawks are losing it. I guess this goes to revenues from the building itself: who do they go to? This is a serious question that I don’t have the answer to. I’d also like to know what type of money the Hawks get from WGN and Comcast for their TV contract. I’d bet it’s not a lot given that it was signed before the Hawks got as good as they did, not to mention the fact that the NHL in general (as pointed out in the article) doesn’t normally do well with TV revenues.

As a fan, I’d be upset. It’s always disappointing when your team raises ticket prices, especially right after winning a Cup. To the naked eye, it appears that ownership is simply cashing in on the new success of the team. However, going back to the need to borrow capital, there’s a chance this is real trouble for the Hawks, and not just a ploy to line the pockets of the owners. I would look at the giving of rings to interns, chartering players to road games and staying in the top hotels and other expenses like that as probably a little unnecessary, but that would be due to purely selfish reasons given that it takes me a while to save up and buy a ticket when the Wings are in town. On the flip side, it’s a sign that the team is doing what it can to keep the players happy, thus ensuring they stay and continue to potentially have success on the ice. Rocky is walking a very fine line, and no one is going to be happy with this decision.

"I really like the guys who go for the win in overtime" - HNIC's own Harry Neale

The Hole in the Door

Like to keep your communication short and to the point? Follow me on Twitter

by Amerinadian on Jul 30, 2010 10:15 AM CDT reply actions

The United Center is owned 50% by the Hawks and 50% by the Bulls. It could very well be a place where profits are being hidden.

As far as the need to borrow capital issue, with hidden books, there’s no way to say that the Hawks didn’t pay capital up to the parent corporation and then borrow it back (maybe even with a little interest thrown in, which they pay to themselves to hide profitability).

I think another big piece is where the article said they made improvements to the UC and to their practice facility. With non-public books, there’s no way to tell how they’re amortizing that spending. They could be taking that financial hit all in one year to make it look like they’re less profitable, or they could spread it out over several years. I just don’t think I can trust anybody who says that they’re not making money as one of the most successful teams under a salary-capped system when they won’t share all of that profit information.

I only hope that he’s not positioning the Hawks on the side of screwing things up with the next CBA. There was a backhanded sleight at the fact that they had to pay into the revenue-sharing pot and I’m among the people who think that the higher-earning clubs should actually pay MORE into revenue sharing to help the struggling teams (as one of the ways to help them, not the only way) and to ease the burden on the players’ escrow (which of course the league owners don’t care about).

by J.J. from Kansas on Jul 30, 2010 10:24 AM CDT up reply actions

more into revenue sharing from the regular season

Would not be a horrible idea. Right now it is enough to tick off the larger-revenue clubs but not enough to really help the smaller-revenue clubs. If you are going to annoy someone, at least make it effective and actually help the smaller markets.

But I think that playoff revenues should be off-limits for any revenue sharing plan. If a team wants a cut of playoff revenue, then GET IN THE PLAYOFFS YOUR OWN DAMN SELF. Don’t parasitize off the playoff teams if you didn’t make it.

"It is a mistake to try to look too far ahead. The chain of destiny can only be grasped one link at a time." --Sir Winston Churchill (1874 – 1965)

by Baroque on Jul 31, 2010 5:45 AM CDT up reply actions

I guess we are going to see how many Hawks fans are really out there. I was a bit disgruntled with all the bandwagon fans last year.

"I have to carry out another fine moment before I die."
-Tatsuya Kawajiri-

by Erich Vowell on Jul 30, 2010 2:49 PM CDT reply actions

Not terribly shocked

Considering we just did the same thing

Back off man, I'm a scientist

Winging It In Motown
and SB Nation Detroit --SB Nation's regional hub for all your Detroit sporting needs
Twitter

by Ryan Weiss on Jul 30, 2010 2:49 PM CDT reply actions

True

But saying

“For eight years we held back and we absorbed the cost,” Violetta said. “Our cost didn’t go down during those eight years but we didn’t raise our prices.”

Isn’t the same as saying that the organization is losing money and feeding us some cockamamie bullshit about having to borrow money from the parent corporation to make their payroll.

by J.J. from Kansas on Jul 30, 2010 3:11 PM CDT up reply actions