Salary Cap: Capageddon 2016

[DucksAreCool]

Not all arenas are run by the hockey tenants. And that doesn't offset the fact that there are teams who do run the arenas and actually make money on the hockey team. All that U2 concerts mean is that he isn't taking enough of a bath overall to where he's selling/relocating the team because his portfolio is hemorrhaging money. It doesn't make the Ducks profitable. And it's not reasonable to expect a businessman to fund a loser. Luckily, he's an actual fan of the game and a philanthropist, so he's actively creating a hockey culture that should pay off in another 10-20 years (what the Kings SHOULD have been doing 40'years ago).

Oh, I'm not agreeing with anything anyone else may have been saying (although I don't necessarily believe they lose quite as much as he says or implies, lying about it does nothing but benefit him) I was just saying arena related income has a little more to do with the team than his other business interests. Really just a small pedantic point.

 

[Ducks DVM]

Oh, I'm not agreeing with anything anyone else may have been saying (although I don't necessarily believe they lose quite as much as he says or implies, lying about it does nothing but benefit him) I was just saying arena related income has a little more to do with the team than his other business interests. Really just a small pedantic point.

That's fair.

 

[duckpuck]

No, I said non-Ducks related arena income Is irrelevant. It's no more related to the Ducks than Broadcom dividends.

LMAO. I explained to you why it was related - because the Samuelis only have the arena rights because they own the ducks - and you agreed. Now you're back to disagreeing.

Let me lay it out for you again.

The Samueli's would receive broadcom dividends whether or not they owned the ducks.

The City of Anaheim ONLY gave them the management contract for the arena because they owned the ducks. They would not be receiving arena revenue if they did not own the ducks.

And, to be clear, the Arena appears to be profitable:

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/center-497810-honda-million.html

 

[Ducks DVM]

LMAO. I explained to you why it was related - because the Samuelis only have the arena rights because they own the ducks - and you agreed. Now you're back to disagreeing.

Let me lay it out for you again.

The Samueli's would receive broadcom dividends whether or not they owned the ducks.

The City of Anaheim ONLY gave them the management contract for the arena because they owned the ducks. They would not be receiving arena revenue if they did not own the ducks.

And, to be clear, the Arena appears to be profitable:

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/center-497810-honda-million.html

Because the money, staff, and effort involved in booking the arena is independent of the Ducks. It's a different business. It does very different things. They have more financial success doing that than running the Ducks, that doesn't make it ok that the Ducks lose money.

 

[duckpuck]

Because the money, staff, and effort involved in booking the arena is independent of the Ducks. It's a different business. It does very different things. They have more financial success doing that than running the Ducks, that doesn't make it ok that the Ducks lose money.

Since the two businesses are a package deal, you need to take both into account before claiming a loss - revenue and expenses from BOTH. At this point, I'm trying to figure out if you really believe what you type or simply choose not to understand.

There is a long history of owners claiming losses, only to later find out that they were not really doing so or that they were way overstated (for example, they were paying themselves massive salaries). I tend to believe the Samuelis because I think they are basically honest people and the Duck's revenue stream is not what it should be. However, I'm not so naive as to accept it at face value - and you shouldn't either.

And, in any event, the arena operations are part of the package deal and should be included in the overall assessment. If they are losing money on the arena contract (which is possible I suppose), then I would certainly say that those losses were attributable to the team.

 

[Ducks DVM]

Since the two businesses are a package deal, you need to take both into account before claiming a loss - revenue and expenses from BOTH. At this point, I'm trying to figure out if you really believe what you type or simply choose not to understand.

There is a long history of owners claiming losses, only to later find out that they were not really doing so or that they were way overstated (for example, they were paying themselves massive salaries). I tend to believe the Samuelis because I think they are basically honest people and the Duck's revenue stream is not what it should be. However, I'm not so naive as to accept it at face value - and you shouldn't either.

And, in any event, the arena operations are part of the package deal and should be included in the overall assessment. If they are losing money on the arena contract (which is possible I suppose), then I would certainly say that those losses were attributable to the team.

Ok, we fundamentally disagree. Time to move on.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

http://edmontonjournal.com/sports/h...illionaires-keep-buying-teams-that-lose-money

This is a very good article that hits on some topics discussed here.

 

[profchaos2001]

Having watched Hagelin every year as a Ranger fan, signing him to a 4m AAV contract was absurd. Especially with the cap crunch.

As much as Torts was a ********* for saying calling him out for it, Hagelin has no nose for the net (He said that Hagelin was crap on the Powerplay a couple years ago in the playoffs and got eviscerated for it, despite it being true). He's a grinder and a PKer. I saw all these rumors of him being slotted on the top line with getzlaf and I was baffled.

Then again Etem has been a non-factor on the Rangers, so the "trade" is basically pointless for both teams.

 

[Kalv]

Having watched Hagelin every year as a Ranger fan, signing him to a 4m AAV contract was absurd. Especially with the cap crunch.

As much as Torts was a ********* for saying calling him out for it, Hagelin has no nose for the net (He said that Hagelin was crap on the Powerplay a couple years ago in the playoffs and got eviscerated for it, despite it being true). He's a grinder and a PKer. I saw all these rumors of him being slotted on the top line with getzlaf and I was baffled.

Then again Etem has been a non-factor on the Rangers, so the "trade" is basically pointless for both teams.

Yeah but you didn`t sign Etem for 4x4

 

[TheJoeMan]

I never said the arena shouldn't have a new scoreboard. The city owns the arena. The Ducks are tenants and pay rent there. It's seems logical to me that the city pay for some if not all of the upgrades. It's not at all unlike a landlord re roofing a rental property he owns. It comes with the territory. I just question so many people here talk about Henry paying for the scoreboard when I have serious doubts he did. Or if he'd did at all, it would be in conjunction with the landlord.

Nobody can contradict what the owner of a private business says his profitability is or isn't. That's not even up for debate.

And for the record I have always said the Samuelli's have been excellent owners. This discussion is in no way a contradiction of that belief. I still think they are. But they do belong to a very exclusive club where pleading poverty (in public) is part of the oath you take when joining. I understand and accept that.

The company I work for was the stucco subcontractor on the Grand Terrace addition and I can tell you the Samueli's paid for that not the city of Anaheim so I can assure you that Samueli paid for the scoreboard. And the landlord/roof analogy doesn't work because renting home and running a business are different. The landlord doesn't spend money on what a business uses to conduct their business. Do you think the city pays for every businesses signage, registers, shelves, etc.? That's ridiculous.

But what does Samueli benefit by lying about the money the team loses? It's not like he has investors to suck up to. It's not to get in on revenue-sharing because the league has to see their books. If he lies to them he could lose his team. Is it to just throw a pity party for the public? Why? What good does that accomplish? The fact is we know how much the building holds, we know how much ticket prices are, we know how many people watch on TV, we know which companies sponsor the team and we know how much they spend on personnel. There's no smoke and mirrors here hiding a windfall of profits. This team team isn't built to make money with size of their building and price of their tickets.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

The company I work for was the stucco subcontractor on the Grand Terrace addition and I can tell you the Samueli's paid for that not the city of Anaheim so I can assure you that Samueli paid for the scoreboard. And the landlord/roof analogy doesn't work because renting home and running a business are different. The landlord doesn't spend money on what a business uses to conduct their business. Do you think the city pays for every businesses signage, registers, shelves, etc.? That's ridiculous.

But what does Samueli benefit by lying about the money the team loses? It's not like he has investors to suck up to. It's not to get in on revenue-sharing because the league has to see their books. If he lies to them he could lose his team. Is it to just throw a pity party for the public? Why? What good does that accomplish? The fact is we know how much the building holds, we know how much ticket prices are, we know how many people watch on TV, we know which companies sponsor the team and we know how much they spend on personnel. There's no smoke and mirrors here hiding a windfall of profits. This team team isn't built to make money with size of their building and price of their tickets.

First bold...you have no idea what arrangement Henry dos or does not have with the city. You're just pulling that assumption out of you know where.

Second bold...I hate to tell you this but renting out a home is a business as well. Really, it is.

Third bold...FFS Joe, nobody said he was lying to the league. And yes, all sports owners posture such that they are always taking it in the wallet for the good of the team. You have to let it go in one ear and out the other just like when a used car salesman says, trust me.

Fourth bold...Nobody has ever said anything about windfall profits. That's just you intentionally twisting the position of someone you don't agree with.

It's really amazing that you think you know how much money a private company does or doesn't make. You're welcome to assume anything you want. You're not welcome to postulate it as a fact.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

First bold...you have no idea what arrangement Henry dos or does not have with the city. You're just pulling that assumption out of you know where.

Second bold...I hate to tell you this but renting out a home is a business as well. Really, it is.

Third bold...FFS Joe, nobody said he was lying to the league. And yes, all sports owners posture such that they are always taking it in the wallet for the good of the team. You have to let it go in one ear and out the other just like when a used car salesman says, trust me.

Fourth bold...Nobody has ever said anything about windfall profits. That's just you intentionally twisting the position of someone you don't agree with.

It's really amazing that you think you know how much money a private company does or doesn't make. You're welcome to assume anything you want. You're not welcome to postulate it as a fact.

Presumably TJM thinks that corporate accounting is just as straightforward as, say, playing with an injury.

 

[mightyquack]

Presumably TJM thinks that corporate accounting is just as straightforward as, say, playing with an injury.

Wish someone told me that before I bothered doing a degree.

 

[TheJoeMan]

First bold...you have no idea what arrangement Henry dos or does not have with the city. You're just pulling that assumption out of you know where.

Second bold...I hate to tell you this but renting out a home is a business as well. Really, it is.

Third bold...FFS Joe, nobody said he was lying to the league. And yes, all sports owners posture such that they are always taking it in the wallet for the good of the team. You have to let it go in one ear and out the other just like when a used car salesman says, trust me.

Fourth bold...Nobody has ever said anything about windfall profits. That's just you intentionally twisting the position of someone you don't agree with.

It's really amazing that you think you know how much money a private company does or doesn't make. You're welcome to assume anything you want. You're not welcome to postulate it as a fact.

What good? You still haven't answered that question. What good does it do? How does projecting losses to the public help your team? Do you think it inspires sympathy and that'll make people want to buy more tickets or merchandise? There's no strategic value to lying to the public about the kind of money your team does or doesn't make. Even if he's exaggerating about the amount he's losing, why? Wouldn't you want to be honest if you're team wasn't actually performing that poorly so you can look like something of a success? Saying your team loses tens of millions of dollars rather than just millions or even none at all makes no sense.

And the first point you're contending isn't conjecture on my part, I know for a fact that the Anaheim Ducks paid for the Grand Terrace expansion as I said my company worked on that job and I've seen the invoices. And if they paid for that they certainly paid for the scoreboard. And my god your roofing analogy is just so wrong. A person renting a house isn't a business. But if they were running a business out of that house the landlord has nothing to do with anything related to that business. I rent the house I live in. If I decided to start a t-shirt business my landlord isn't about to buy the screen-printing machine for me. Sure it's his responsibility to fix the roof if it breaks but he's not going to pay for it if I decided I wanted to put in a skylight. It doesn't work like that. So please stop it with that analogy because it doesn't help your argument.

The bottom line is this team loses a lot of money. I don't know why so many think one of the foremost authorities in the reporting of money and economics is misguided in how they evaluate team revenues but all the evidence points to this team not being remotely profitable. You'd think the fact that this team having one of the lowest payrolls, cheapest ticket prices and visibly smallest fanbases would be easy enough to tip people off to this fact. But apparently anyone in the public eye is lying to us no matter irrelevant such a stance would be to conducting one's business.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

What good? You still haven't answered that question. What good does it do? How does projecting losses to the public help your team? Do you think it inspires sympathy and that'll make people want to buy more tickets or merchandise? There's no strategic value to lying to the public about the kind of money your team does or doesn't make. Even if he's exaggerating about the amount he's losing, why? Wouldn't you want to be honest if you're team wasn't actually performing that poorly so you can look like something of a success? Saying your team loses tens of millions of dollars rather than just millions or even none at all makes no sense.

And the first point you're contending isn't conjecture on my part, I know for a fact that the Anaheim Ducks paid for the Grand Terrace expansion as I said my company worked on that job and I've seen the invoices. And if they paid for that they certainly paid for the scoreboard. And my god your roofing analogy is just so wrong. A person renting a house isn't a business. But if they were running a business out of that house the landlord has nothing to do with anything related to that business. I rent the house I live in. If I decided to start a t-shirt business my landlord isn't about to buy the screen-printing machine for me. Sure it's his responsibility to fix the roof if it breaks but he's not going to pay for it if I decided I wanted to put in a skylight. It doesn't work like that. So please stop it with that analogy because it doesn't help your argument.

The bottom line is this team loses a lot of money. I don't know why so many think one of the foremost authorities in the reporting of money and economics is misguided in how they evaluate team revenues but all the evidence points to this team not being remotely profitable. You'd think the fact that this team having one of the lowest payrolls, cheapest ticket prices and visibly smallest fanbases would be easy enough to tip people off to this fact. But apparently anyone in the public eye is lying to us no matter irrelevant such a stance would be to conducting one's business.

Once again you make the same assumption that because you think you know he paid for the grand terrace (and you have no clue what concession the city may have given him to entice him to "pay for it") that he absolutely paid for the scoreboard. It's not possible to debate with a person who refuses to acknowledge logic.

And you're BS argument about a t-shirt business is again you refusing to accept logic. The business is the landlord who rents you the home. When things wear out he pays to fix and/or replace them. When the house is an arena and the tenant is a sports team, it's not a stretch to think a scoreboard is like a roof. Your t-shirt business is totally a red herring.

Anybody who does business with the government and the public is hardly to be believed about any public statement they make. They are always self serving statement, even if some of them are true.

I've never claimed I know exactly who pays for what, but neither do you. You should stop insisting you do.

 

[TheJoeMan]

Once again you make the same assumption that because you think you know he paid for the grand terrace (and you have no clue what concession the city may have given him to entice him to "pay for it") that he absolutely paid for the scoreboard. It's not possible to debate with a person who refuses to acknowledge logic.

And you're BS argument about a t-shirt business is again you refusing to accept logic. The business is the landlord who rents you the home. When things wear out he pays to fix and/or replace them. When the house is an arena and the tenant is a sports team, it's not a stretch to think a scoreboard is like a roof. Your t-shirt business is totally a red herring.

Anybody who does business with the government and the public is hardly to be believed about any public statement they make. They are always self serving statement, even if some of them are true.

I've never claimed I know exactly who pays for what, but neither do you. You should stop insisting you do.

Are you trying to tell me my company doesn't know who pays us for our work? Anaheim Arena LLC, not the city of Anaheim, paid the subcontractors on the Grand Terrace. You can come on down to our offices in Corona and I can show you the invoices if you require such physical evidence to satisfy a trivial argument. I asked my boss about it at lunch and he talked to Kevin Starkey so I can assure you, the Samueli's paid for the new scoreboard. You can believe me if you want but this is a fact.

But you still haven't answered my question so I'll ask it a third time: What good does lying about how much money your business loses help you in any way? I get you have a preternatural tendency to not trust what a public figure tells you but what logic would that person be using to justify such a position? It just doesn't make sense. I mean I can see a parent lying to his kid about how much money he makes in order to avoid giving his kids allowance (as petty as that would be) but the owners of a hockey team don't owe the public anything. Why lie about it?

 

[Nurmagomedov]

Are you trying to tell me my company doesn't know who pays us for our work? Anaheim Arena LLC, not the city of Anaheim, paid the subcontractors on the Grand Terrace. You can come on down to our offices in Corona and I can show you the invoices if you require such physical evidence to satisfy a trivial argument. I asked my boss about it at lunch and he talked to Kevin Starkey so I can assure you, the Samueli's paid for the new scoreboard. You can believe me if you want but this is a fact.

Wait, so the arena company paid for the renovations but the Samueli's paid for the scoreboard?

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

Are you trying to tell me my company doesn't know who pays us for our work? Anaheim Arena LLC, not the city of Anaheim, paid the subcontractors on the Grand Terrace. You can come on down to our offices in Corona and I can show you the invoices if you require such physical evidence to satisfy a trivial argument. I asked my boss about it at lunch and he talked to Kevin Starkey so I can assure you, the Samueli's paid for the new scoreboard. You can believe me if you want but this is a fact.

But you still haven't answered my question so I'll ask it a third time: What good does lying about how much money your business loses help you in any way? I get you have a preternatural tendency to not trust what a public figure tells you but what logic would that person be using to justify such a position? It just doesn't make sense. I mean I can see a parent lying to his kid about how much money he makes in order to avoid giving his kids allowance (as petty as that would be) but the owners of a hockey team don't owe the public anything. Why lie about it?

You're being obtuse Joe, please stop. I've said multiple times that you (and I) have no idea what arrangement Henry has with the city. Sure he sent a check to your company. But maybe the city told him if he paid for the addition he could keep 90% of the concessions and/or other ancillary revenues generated by the addition from now until they tear it down. Or some other new revenue stream he previously did not receive. You don't know that so stop acting like you do. Secondly, regardless of how the terrace deal went down, you do not know who paid for the scoreboard or again if Henry and the city made some kind of deal. You don't know these things and you should stop acting like you do.

Your question about lying is humorous. Any company wants it's customers to like them. You want your customers to believe you will go to bat for them. You want to build good will with them so they continue spending money with you. FFS Joe, it's basic, common sense logic to running any business. Have you ever bought a car Joe? Ever had the salesman tell you he's going to take your offer to the boss and do everything humanly possible to have his boss accept your crappy offer? He knows the boss isn't going to accept your offer. But he hopes you still like him and end up buying the car from him at a higher price anyway. Why? Because he's your buddy and he went to bat for you. Because he lied to you to make you think he cares more about you than his paycheck. But hey, why would anybody lie huh?

It's beyond Lindholm, Fowler, or Andersen level of amazing that you continue to insist you know the detailed inner workings of a privately owned business. And it's quite naive that you can't see why a company would try to earn their customers' good will by pretending to make money losing business decisions just for the sake of their customers.

 

[snarktacular]

Customer goodwill, so they won't feel bad about paying money or price hikes.

Public goodwill, so politicians can give more favorable tax benefits, renewal options.

Private goodwill, so employees will be willing to accept less.

Public/private goodwill, to aid in any negotiations. Whether it be with the NHLPA, vendors, government, anything.

 

[TheJoeMan]

You're being obtuse Joe, please stop. I've said multiple times that you (and I) have no idea what arrangement Henry has with the city. Sure he sent a check to your company. But maybe the city told him if he paid for the addition he could keep 90% of the concessions and/or other ancillary revenues generated by the addition from now until they tear it down. Or some other new revenue stream he previously did not receive. You don't know that so stop acting like you do. Secondly, regardless of how the terrace deal went down, you do not know who paid for the scoreboard or again if Henry and the city made some kind of deal. You don't know these things and you should stop acting like you do.

Your question about lying is humorous. Any company wants it's customers to like them. You want your customers to believe you will go to bat for them. You want to build good will with them so they continue spending money with you. FFS Joe, it's basic, common sense logic to running any business. Have you ever bought a car Joe? Ever had the salesman tell you he's going to take your offer to the boss and do everything humanly possible to have his boss accept your crappy offer? He knows the boss isn't going to accept your offer. But he hopes you still like him and end up buying the car from him at a higher price anyway. Why? Because he's your buddy and he went to bat for you. Because he lied to you to make you think he cares more about you than his paycheck. But hey, why would anybody lie huh?

It's beyond Lindholm, Fowler, or Andersen level of amazing that you continue to insist you know the detailed inner workings of a privately owned business. And it's quite naive that you can't see why a company would try to earn their customers' good will by pretending to make money losing business decisions just for the sake of their customers.

The product that the owners of a hockey team is selling to the public is hockey, not the team itself. Do you feel more inclined to watch Ducks games knowing they lose upwards to ten million dollars a season? Would you turn away if you know they're making a profit? This is the rationale you're presenting me with this car salesman nonsense. If the Samueli's were looking to sell the team then lying about how much money they're losing might make sense but they're not. They're simply stating facts.

And they're stating them because none of it is a secret. Brian Burke mentioned it years ago that even in the Cup year we didn't turn a profit and complained the lower bowl of the Pond has too few seats to really make any money and that's when the salary cap was almost half of what it is now. The vast majority of a team's revenue stream is common knowledge enough for a publication like Forbes to evaluate how much money each team makes. And we're not talking rocket science here either. The salary cap is public knowledge and it's based off of league revenues so whatever number Forbes comes up with has to correlate to that figure and, surprise, surprise, it does. Meanwhile not one reporter has come out and contradicted any of it. Do you not believe the reports about how much the Coyotes, Panthers and Hurricanes are losing too? There's no conspiracy here. Why do you think we had two major work stoppages in ten years? Why do you think there has been so much complaining about teams in non-traditional markets?

 

[TheJoeMan]

Wait, so the arena company paid for the renovations but the Samueli's paid for the scoreboard?

The company that operates the Pond that includes all that goes on there like concerts, rodeos, sporting events, etc., is Anaheim Arena LLC which is owned by the Samuelis. They owned it before they bought the Ducks in 2005. The Ducks are technically a tenant for that company but they just so happened to be owned by the same people.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

The product that the owners of a hockey team is selling to the public is hockey, not the team itself. Do you feel more inclined to watch Ducks games knowing they lose upwards to ten million dollars a season? Would you turn away if you know they're making a profit? This is the rationale you're presenting me with this car salesman nonsense. If the Samueli's were looking to sell the team then lying about how much money they're losing might make sense but they're not. They're simply stating facts.

And they're stating them because none of it is a secret. Brian Burke mentioned it years ago that even in the Cup year we didn't turn a profit and complained the lower bowl of the Pond has too few seats to really make any money and that's when the salary cap was almost half of what it is now. The vast majority of a team's revenue stream is common knowledge enough for a publication like Forbes to evaluate how much money each team makes. And we're not talking rocket science here either. The salary cap is public knowledge and it's based off of league revenues so whatever number Forbes comes up with has to correlate to that figure and, surprise, surprise, it does. Meanwhile not one reporter has come out and contradicted any of it. Do you not believe the reports about how much the Coyotes, Panthers and Hurricanes are losing too? There's no conspiracy here. Why do you think we had two major work stoppages in ten years? Why do you think there has been so much complaining about teams in non-traditional markets?

I'm done here Joe. You can go back to your t-shirt business now.

 

[Opak]

Bumping an old thread, but I think it's relevant.

According to a statement by Bettman, the maximum cap for the 2016-2017 season will not go down, and could increase as much as $3 million. This would mean that the total cap would be between $71.4 and $74.4 million.

Not sure whether the Samuelis would be willing to adjust the annual budget to compensate for the increased salary cap though. I'd imagine that they'd give a bit of leeway in order to make sure the team stays competitive, with the re-signings coming up and all. Lindholm, Vatanen, Rakell and Freddy are among the guys, who haven't been extended so far.

 

[Duck Off]

Ducks current roster next year:

Rakell(?) - Getzlaf(8.25) - Perry(8.625)
Sekac(?) - Kesler(6.875) - Silfverberg(3.75)
Hagelin(4) - ____(?) - Cogliano(3)
Maroon(2) - Thompson(1.6) - ____(?)
____(?)/_____(?)

Despres(3.7) - Fowler(4)
Lindholm(?) - Bieksa(4)
Stoner(3.25) - Vatanen(?)
_____(?)

Andersen(?)
Gibson(2.3)

That's 55.35 million for 13 players, and we still need to re-sign key guys like Lindholm, Vatanen, Rakell, and maybe Andersen. Murray really put himself in a bind with those disgusting contracts of Bieksa and Hagelin.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

I believe many think the 74.4 number as being optimistic. The Canadian dollar is a rather big risk that has been going the wrong way for a while. There's also an issue with the PA and how a cap escalator clause has caused the escrow account to be high enough to cause some complaints within the members. Not too clear on the details but for the sake of keeping the escrow amount lower, the union may not be too interested in an increasing cap during times of financial uncertainty.