Speculation: 2020-21 Management/Coach/Owner Discussion

[Hockey Duckie]

My rebuttal is billionaires can afford to pay their employee salaries. If you don't believe that, or want to get into some weird debate about "capital", then I have nothing for you here. They can afford it.

They have been paying their employees since everything shutdown, in what... March? No hockey, no concerts, no anything inside the Honda Center. It's been 9 months without generating any capital while paying salaries to their employees. Remember, the Samueli's aren't breaking even by owning the Ducks until they make the playoffs, losses in the double digit millions. The Ducks are supplemented by Samueli's other businesses and the Samueli's know this, but continue to keep the Ducks in Anaheim. Right now, the Samueli's are on the hook for at least $82.4 mil for player salaries for the 2020-21 season.

Most people don't have a savings plan that can last them 3 months if a situation occurred where no money is generated at all. The Samueli's have lasted longer than most without generating serious capital.

I'll reiterate this simple example. Disney owns Disneyland and Disney World. Disneyland had to fire 28,000 in late September because the California state policy would not open. Disney World has partially re-opened in Florida. The determination of firing 28,000 employees from Disneyland was the policy that Gov. Newsom would not open up the state, which prompted the firing.

Billionaires became billionaires and millionaires became millionaires because they made capital because there was a venue for it. Without a venue to generate any capital, then those billionaires would soon become millionaires or lesser because of the loss of value.

Refocus your animus to the policies and policy makers. That policies doesn't hinder Amazon, but strengthens Amazon, who is hiring while the rest of the world is firing.

People are people. Just because someone is wealthy, that doesn't mean they are altruistic. I'm also sure that there are poor people who are selfish. Assigning what people should do to help others in this world by how much money they have is a waste of time. The world would be a better place if everyone was generous (monetarily and otherwise) but this will never be the case. Best if we do what we can do to be generous and helpful, that's all each of us can control.

That's the point. When the Samueli's did generate capital, they were always generous. Now that they're not generating as much capital to absorb being philanthropic, people are mad at them? Samueli's have a lot of other employees to take care of as well to help them get through these trying times until they can start generating capital again to re-hire some workers. California is taking a toll, including shutting businesses down. In shutting businesses down, that means people cannot work or are losing money or both.

It's a sad day to paint the Samueli's in this "just because someone is wealthy doesn't mean they are altruistic" image. It's not the Samueli's fault the state has remained shut down since March while seeing Florida, Texas, and Arizona be more welcoming to opening businesses back up again. Just like it's not Disney's fault that CA remained shutdown to where they had to fire 28,000 people from Disneyland all the while Disney World is open in Florida, albeit partially open. Neither businesses have "control" to open up in California.

 

[bumperkisser]

People are people. Just because someone is wealthy, that doesn't mean they are altruistic. I'm also sure that there are poor people who are selfish. Assigning what people should do to help others in this world by how much money they have is a waste of time. The world would be a better place if everyone was generous (monetarily and otherwise) but this will never be the case. Best if we do what we can do to be generous and helpful, that's all each of us can control.

Hear hear! Totally agreed.

Also, to pick on someone because they're billionaires seems illogical as why draw the line at billionaires. Why not millionaires? Why not people with 5 digit networths? There's a stat that I believe shows $30,000 USD annually is the top 1% in the world. Should we draw the line there?

It becomes an extremely slippery slope when someone can draw an arbitrary line in the sand because of their net worth and demand that they sacrifice their financial well being but no one below this line should have to.

That's why everyone should definitely just appreciate and say thanks to the people doing good in this world. Even if it's not up to your personal preference/standard, I think it's important to realize that everyone has their own situation whether public or not and if they're doing a good deed at all, let's just praise the good deed and focus on how we, ourselves, can continue to better the world/people around us with our actions.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

I'm glad someone is finally standing up for our oppressed gilded class, out here doing the lord's work, generating capital and shit. Lol.

 

[Static]

Hear hear! Totally agreed.

Also, to pick on someone because they're billionaires seems illogical as why draw the line at billionaires. Why not millionaires? Why not people with 5 digit networths? There's a stat that I believe shows $30,000 USD annually is the top 1% in the world. Should we draw the line there?

It becomes an extremely slippery slope when someone can draw an arbitrary line in the sand because of their net worth and demand that they sacrifice their financial well being but no one below this line should have to.

That's why everyone should definitely just appreciate and say thanks to the people doing good in this world. Even if it's not up to your personal preference/standard, I think it's important to realize that everyone has their own situation whether public or not and if they're doing a good deed at all, let's just praise the good deed and focus on how we, ourselves, can continue to better the world/people around us with our actions.

Seriously?

 

[Deuce22]

They have been paying their employees since everything shutdown, in what... March? No hockey, no concerts, no anything inside the Honda Center. It's been 9 months without generating any capital while paying salaries to their employees. Remember, the Samueli's aren't breaking even by owning the Ducks until they make the playoffs, losses in the double digit millions. The Ducks are supplemented by Samueli's other businesses and the Samueli's know this, but continue to keep the Ducks in Anaheim. Right now, the Samueli's are on the hook for at least $82.4 mil for player salaries for the 2020-21 season.

Most people don't have a savings plan that can last them 3 months if a situation occurred where no money is generated at all. The Samueli's have lasted longer than most without generating serious capital.

I'll reiterate this simple example. Disney owns Disneyland and Disney World. Disneyland had to fire 28,000 in late September because the California state policy would not open. Disney World has partially re-opened in Florida. The determination of firing 28,000 employees from Disneyland was the policy that Gov. Newsom would not open up the state, which prompted the firing.

Billionaires became billionaires and millionaires became millionaires because they made capital because there was a venue for it. Without a venue to generate any capital, then those billionaires would soon become millionaires or lesser because of the loss of value.

Refocus your animus to the policies and policy makers. That policies doesn't hinder Amazon, but strengthens Amazon, who is hiring while the rest of the world is firing.



That's the point. When the Samueli's did generate capital, they were always generous. Now that they're not generating as much capital to absorb being philanthropic, people are mad at them? Samueli's have a lot of other employees to take care of as well to help them get through these trying times until they can start generating capital again to re-hire some workers. California is taking a toll, including shutting businesses down. In shutting businesses down, that means people cannot work or are losing money or both.

It's a sad day to paint the Samueli's in this "just because someone is wealthy doesn't mean they are altruistic" image. It's not the Samueli's fault the state has remained shut down since March while seeing Florida, Texas, and Arizona be more welcoming to opening businesses back up again. Just like it's not Disney's fault that CA remained shutdown to where they had to fire 28,000 people from Disneyland all the while Disney World is open in Florida, albeit partially open. Neither businesses have "control" to open up in California.

It wasn't my intention to categorize the Samueli's as not being altruistic. I don't know enough about them to make that call. I was just pointing out that it's a mistake to assume that anyone with a lot of money is going to share it with others.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

It wasn't my intention to categorize the Samueli's as not being altruistic. I don't know enough about them to make that call. I was just pointing out that it's a mistake to assume that anyone with a lot of money is going to share it with others.

To be clear, my position is that people of extraordinary wealth achieved it (when they didn't inherit it) by hoarding it, so I don't assume it will change, but I do judge them quite harshly for it.

The false equivalence/slippery slope nonsense in response to this is just that, nonsense. Wealth as a philosophical concept is a matter of perspective, sure, but saying that a person who makes $30k per year is wealthy compared with a dirt farmer somewhere doesn't address the argument that an American family making $30k can barely sustain itself, let alone help others. So, nope. Likewise the line-drawing argument - who cares if there's a grey area between fabulously wealthy and not? Is there any argument that Samueli is on the latter side of it? No? Okay then. Anyway that argument rests on confiscatory/anti-tax arguments, and what we're talking about is charity. If you have the means to help thousands (literally) of people, and don't, because you really like being wealthy, guess what? That reflects on your character. Sorry.

I'd be more interested in "let's focus on the good" sentiments if they weren't simply "let's ignore this problem" statements of virtue.

Anyway, this is a dick move.

 

[bumperkisser]

To be clear, my position is that people of extraordinary wealth achieved it (when they didn't inherit it) by hoarding it, so I don't assume it will change, but I do judge them quite harshly for it.

The false equivalence/slippery slope nonsense in response to this is just that, nonsense. Wealth as a philosophical concept is a matter of perspective, sure, but saying that a person who makes $30k per year is wealthy compared with a dirt farmer somewhere doesn't address the argument that an American family making $30k can barely sustain itself, let alone help others. So, nope. Likewise the line-drawing argument - who cares if there's a grey area between fabulously wealthy and not? Is there any argument that Samueli is on the latter side of it? No? Okay then. Anyway that argument rests on confiscatory/anti-tax arguments, and what we're talking about is charity. If you have the means to help thousands (literally) of people, and don't, because you really like being wealthy, guess what? That reflects on your character. Sorry.

I'd be more interested in "let's focus on the good" sentiments if they weren't simply "let's ignore this problem" statements of virtue.

Anyway, this is a dick move.

I feel like the connotation of this statement is so off. Why can't a successful business person have generated extraordinary wealth just by being a successful businessman?

A successful entrepreneur can still have donated hundreds of millions of dollars or donated their time to helping causes they believe in, and still be worth billions because the beauty of their business is in regular times they can replenish that.

Take Bill Gates for example, have donated 45.5 BILLION to date and they still have extraordinary wealth to date. Buffett gives billions every year.

The Samueli's have also donated over 500 million dollars as well in their history.

Is it not slightly preposterous that we're here demanding they do more when we as a society should be doing more ourselves instead of only asking for better from others? If everyone in the masses did a bit more, we'd all be better off.

As for your point about the 30k family vs the farmer elsewhere, my point is that from their perspective they'd have the exact same feelings as you are having towards the billionaires. They'd say wow, look at these hoarders trying to save for their retirement or to build a downpayment for a mortgage or have an iPhone. I can barely get 1 meal a day and here they are spending on materialistic wants instead of helping the less privileged in the world. It's a matter of perspective. No one knows what's going on with another person's situation. Maybe the Samueli's truly ran dry cause they had no income, and if it wasn't cutting off these arena salaries, it would've had to been shut down some other business which would've affected other people's livelihoods.

Anyways, I appreciate all the civil discussions that have happened over the last 24 hours. I believe the different perspectives are all important. Going radio silent for a couple days. Enjoy all.

 

[mightyquack]

Man, I wish someone had told me earlier in life I could just donate some money which would absolve me of blame for any future shit decision I made.

This thread is like when people vote for a party who want to give the rich massive tax cuts because they think they'll join that income bracket if they get that one lucky break, even though it goes directly against their interests in their present situation. Amusing stuff.

 

[Deuce22]

To be clear, my position is that people of extraordinary wealth achieved it (when they didn't inherit it) by hoarding it, so I don't assume it will change, but I do judge them quite harshly for it.

The false equivalence/slippery slope nonsense in response to this is just that, nonsense. Wealth as a philosophical concept is a matter of perspective, sure, but saying that a person who makes $30k per year is wealthy compared with a dirt farmer somewhere doesn't address the argument that an American family making $30k can barely sustain itself, let alone help others. So, nope. Likewise the line-drawing argument - who cares if there's a grey area between fabulously wealthy and not? Is there any argument that Samueli is on the latter side of it? No? Okay then. Anyway that argument rests on confiscatory/anti-tax arguments, and what we're talking about is charity. If you have the means to help thousands (literally) of people, and don't, because you really like being wealthy, guess what? That reflects on your character. Sorry.

I'd be more interested in "let's focus on the good" sentiments if they weren't simply "let's ignore this problem" statements of virtue.

Anyway, this is a dick move.

I tend to be slow to judge others, as I am aware that I am not above judgement myself. I agree with your sentiment that it would be better if the Samueli's continued to pay their employees, I just do not feel entitled to tell them what they should do with their money.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

I feel like the connotation of this statement is so off. Why can't a successful business person have generated extraordinary wealth just by being a successful businessman?

A successful entrepreneur can still have donated hundreds of millions of dollars or donated their time to helping causes they believe in, and still be worth billions because the beauty of their business is in regular times they can replenish that.

Take Bill Gates for example, have donated 45.5 BILLION to date and they still have extraordinary wealth to date. Buffett gives billions every year.

The Samueli's have also donated over 500 million dollars as well in their history.

Is it not slightly preposterous that we're here demanding they do more when we as a society should be doing more ourselves instead of only asking for better from others? If everyone in the masses did a bit more, we'd all be better off.

As for your point about the 30k family vs the farmer elsewhere, my point is that from their perspective they'd have the exact same feelings as you are having towards the billionaires. They'd say wow, look at these hoarders trying to save for their retirement or to build a downpayment for a mortgage or have an iPhone. I can barely get 1 meal a day and here they are spending on materialistic wants instead of helping the less privileged in the world. It's a matter of perspective. No one knows what's going on with another person's situation. Maybe the Samueli's truly ran dry cause they had no income, and if it wasn't cutting off these arena salaries, it would've had to been shut down some other business which would've affected other people's livelihoods.

Anyways, I appreciate all the civil discussions that have happened over the last 24 hours. I believe the different perspectives are all important. Going radio silent for a couple days. Enjoy all.

You really should go radio silent and think about whether anything you said rebuts any of my points (it doesn't).

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

I tend to be slow to judge others, as I am aware that I am not above judgement myself. I agree with your sentiment that it would be better if the Samueli's continued to pay their employees, I just do not feel entitled to tell them what they should do with their money.

That's a fair viewpoint that I don't remotely agree with but it's a personal choice. Most of what I set wasn't addressed to you anyway, but it fit where I put it.

 

[Static]

 

[MMC]

Cannot figure out for the life of me why people get so offended and upset about rich people. Seriously mindboggling.

 

[Static]

Cannot figure out for the life of me why people get so offended and upset about rich people. Seriously mindboggling.

You must struggle with empathy then.

Nobody is mad at some abstract version of "rich people", just mad at them treating other humans without any humanity.

 

[MMC]

You must struggle with empathy then.

Nobody is mad at some abstract version of "rich people", just mad at them treating other humans without any humanity.

Oh please. I don't "struggle with empathy" because I'm not turning a rich person doing something questionable into a massive drivel about how the rich are the root of everything wrong with society.

 

[Static]

Oh please. I don't "struggle with empathy" because I'm not turning a rich person doing something questionable into a massive drivel about how the rich are the root of everything wrong with society.

That just makes you a symptom for its continued occurrence. It isn't nearly as cool as you think to not care about people doing bad shit to other people.

 

[MMC]

That just makes you a symptom for its continued occurrence. It isn't nearly as cool as you think to not care about people doing bad shit to other people.

Thanks for telling me how I feel about the situation, I never would've known unless you told me. I'm sure if I instead said I hated the Samuelis for doing this, people would never get laid off again.

 

[Static]

Thanks for telling me how I feel about the situation, I never would've known unless you told me. I'm sure if I instead said I hated the Samuelis for doing this, people would never get laid off again.

Having an opinion on something doesn't equal that thing stopping.

You can't say you're "mind boggled" that people would be offended by this and then cry victim that I'm putting words in your mouth. You said plenty enough.

 

[MMC]

Having an opinion on something doesn't equal that thing stopping.

You can't say you're "mind boggled" that people would be offended by this and then cry victim that I'm putting words in your mouth. You said plenty enough.

I get why people are upset about layoffs. Covid layoffs absolutely devastated my family. What's mindboggling to me is how whenever someone rich does something people don't like, people go on drivels about how evil billionaires are and how all of the problems of the world are caused by them. And you absolutely are putting words in my mouth considering I said nothing about how I actually feel about the recent layoffs.

It's also interesting for you to say someone else is crying victim considering the tone of your posts for the last several pages of this thread.

 

[Static]

I get why people are upset about layoffs. Covid layoffs absolutely devastated my family. What's mindboggling to me is how whenever someone rich does something people don't like, people go on drivels about how evil billionaires are and how all of the problems of the world are caused by them. And you absolutely are putting words in my mouth considering I said nothing about how I actually feel about the recent layoffs.

It's also interesting for you to say someone else is crying victim considering the tone of your posts for the last several pages of this thread.

This is just bizarre. You understand why I would be upset about layoffs but you don't like that I'm upset with the billionaires who did it. But also, don't put words in your mouth because you don't really have an opinion, you just made a drive by comment and are now mad for getting called on it. I have no idea what you're actually trying to say.

I'm crying victim for the actual victims in this scenario, the people who needlessly lost their jobs. Another strange thing to try and weaponize that because, what, you think that makes me look bad? Feeling shitty for the people who lost their jobs? I don't get it.

 

[Static]

We should all hold vigil for the real victims in this, the fabulous billionaires and all their bad press.

 

[MMC]

This is just bizarre. You understand why I would be upset about layoffs but you don't like that I'm upset with the billionaires who did it.

False. What I said was that I don't understand why every time someone rich does something people take issue with, there ends up being a whole drivel about how they are responsible for everything that's wrong with the world, which is what the last few pages of the thread have been. This was not directed at you or any specific poster, just a general observation.

But also, don't put words in your mouth because you don't really have an opinion, you just made a drive by comment and are now mad for getting called on it. I have no idea what you're actually trying to say.

My opinion is that it's shitty that people have to lose their jobs because of layoffs. The thing is I never stated this (nor the reverse), in the initial post I made, nor did I in any post succeeding it, yet you keep trying to say I don't have sympathy for the people involved, solely because I didn't explicitly say in my initial post.

I'm crying victim for the actual victims in this scenario, the people who needlessly lost their jobs. Another strange thing to try and weaponize that because, what, you think that makes me look bad? Feeling shitty for the people who lost their jobs? I don't get it.

I never said you (or anyone else for that matter) looks bad for having sympathy for the people who lost their jobs. All I said is that discussions over things like this always blow way out of proportion to where people go from talking about layoffs to having a debate over moral superiority and start getting accusatory over who is and isn't "part of the problem", which is in fact, what you started doing when you replied to me.

We should all hold vigil for the real victims in this, the fabulous billionaires and all their bad press.

Like I said, blowing it way out of proportion...

 

[Static]

False. What I said was that I don't understand why every time someone rich does something people take issue with, there ends up being a whole drivel about how they are responsible for everything that's wrong with the world, which is what the last few pages of the thread have been. This was not directed at you or any specific poster, just a general observation. My opinion is that it's shitty that people have to lose their jobs because of layoffs. The thing is I never stated this (nor the reverse), in the initial post I made, nor did I in any post succeeding it, yet you keep trying to say I don't have sympathy for the people involved, solely because I didn't explicitly say in my initial post.


I never said you (or anyone else for that matter) looks bad for having sympathy for the people who lost their jobs. All I said is that discussions over things like this always blow way out of proportion to where people go from talking about layoffs to having a debate over moral superiority and start getting accusatory over who is and isn't "part of the problem", which is in fact, what you started doing when you replied to me.

Like I said, blowing it way out of proportion...

This is such chickenshit.

I think this is some of the most disingenuous shit I've ever read on here.

 

[MMC]

This is such chickenshit.

I think this is some of the most disingenuous shit I've ever read on here.

Alright.

 

[Static]

Alright.

Yeah. Such a strong opinion on people calling out billionaires for their callous actions but hiding behind semantics is chickenshit. I still don't know what point you're even trying to make, if there is one.