State of the Ducks

[Static]

I’m not clapping my hands or defending them, I’m stating facts. The team is THEIR toy, not ours. Nobody gets to tell other people how to play with their toys.

I’m not being disingenuous saying I don’t know of any sport with a small market non-profitable team owner who just continually burns cash. If you do say so.

I have a hard time believing any of these teams are non-profitable. There is a line out the door of very smart businessmen and women who would love to own a team. I would assume if it was some money pit these financial gurus wouldn't take a sniff. The cry for poverty some of these people make is typical BS.

So yeah, it's annoying that they won't spend to the cap. It's not tens of millions of dollars, and with the margin so thin between success and failure in any pro league I can't think of any justifiable reason to own a team and not be willing to do that.

The fact of the matter is most of these people have been bottom-line evangelists for their entire life. They aren't here for fandom first, it's a business like any other and it will be ran as such. As a fan that is lame, and it sucks. I don't understand defending it.

 

[Elvs]

Idk why we’re a budget team, the Samuelis are billionaires. Just spend to the ****ing cap

Because they are business people running a business. The goal of any business is to make a profit. If they are losing money it's a bad business for them, no matter how much money they have saved on the side.

 

[AngelDuck]

Above and beyond the fact that they do, you don’t get to be a billionaire by being stupid with money. You certainly don’t stay one that way.

It’s a pretty common practice for all sports fans to complain that their owner won’t spend money regardless of how well the team does, but I’m hard pressed to think of any owners in any sport that spend huge money long term in small markets that aren’t profitable.

Well, they kind of are profitable. If Henry wants to pretend like the balance sheet doesn’t exist and only use the income statement, then fine.

It just doesn’t fool me. This team goes up in value every single year

 

[AngelDuck]

Because they are business people running a business. The goal of any business is to make a profit. If they are losing money it's a bad business for them, no matter how much money they have saved on the side.

Again, it’s absolute nonsense to say they are losing money. A quick look on google at how much they bought the team for and then another search on Forbes for how much the Ducks are worth now tells us that the Samueli’s assets increase every year. And they can liquidate that whenever they want. That’s basic accounting

 

[AngelDuck]

Ducks are worth 460 million. They were purchased for 70 million 12 years ago

“Losing money”...lol

 

[Elvs]

Ducks are worth 460 million. They were purchased for 70 million 12 years ago

“Losing money”...lol

I didn't mean losing money as in getting poorer. I meant it as in losing profit (not maximizing the profit). Bad choice of words. Maybe they feel like the could or should make even more out of this team. Maybe they are not reaching their targeted goals in recent years. Or maybe they just realize this team isn't very good, and think it doesn't justify spending to the cap for. Detroit, Anaheim, Los Angeles and St. Louis are all around the the top in money spent on their rosters. Really, if BM made some better choices, they could have a team for cheaper that's performing better. The way this roster is performing, I can see why they don't like spending to the cap right now.

 

[AngelDuck]

I didn't mean losing money as in getting poorer. I meant it as in losing profit (not maximizing the profit). Bad choice of words. Maybe they feel like the could or should make even more out of this team. Maybe they are not reaching their targeted goals in recent years. Or maybe they just realize this team isn't very good, and think it doesn't justify spending to the cap for. Detroit, Anaheim, Los Angeles and St. Louis are all around the the top in money spent on their rosters. Really, if BM made some better choices, they could have a team for cheaper that's performing better. The way this roster is performing, I can see why they don't like spending to the cap right now.

Fair enough. I see your point. My response to that would be they should be spending away some of their equity gains to improve the team almost every single year. They will still make overall gains in assets because the value increase is massive and the extra spending we are talking about is 4-5 million dollars a year. I don't know the numbers to their losses from operations but I have a hard time believing they have lost ~300 million since they bought the team. In fact there is just no way that's possible honestly unless their business operations are being run poorly.

I mean if you bought a house for cash in CA 15 years ago, how is that going for you right now? Would you be telling people you are "losing money" because you have to pay property taxes and insurance? Of course not. I say that not as a shot at you, but because I know I've read articles where writers say that the team is "losing money". It pisses me off.

People say this about the Angels too. A team that is now worth 2 BILLION dollars and was purchased for 184 million in 2003. It's crazy

 

[Ducks DVM]

Ducks are worth 460 million. They were purchased for 70 million 12 years ago

“Losing money”...lol

So let’s say they lose 25M a year. 25 x 12 + 70 = 470M. Which, including inflation, is an even bigger loss.

Clearly I made that number up, but if they’re routinely losing 10-15M a year, it’s not that much more on a yearly basis to completely erase the entire ROI.

 

[Ducks DVM]

Not that I’m not aware that the numbers are garbage and the accountants have had a field day with them. But I also know that the Samuelis have done more to grow Southern California hockey in 12 years than the Kings and Disney did in all the combined time before. I find it fair to complain if an owner is legitimately cheap like Bill Wirtz. I think it’s not fair to complain just because an owner isn’t profligate.

 

[la patineuse]

I do find it frustrating that the Samuelis are so completely hands off other than supposedly giving BM an annual budget. At some point, I wish they would say something to BM about the addressing coaching situation or let BM go. It's a fine line though, because I'd hate for the Ducks to have owners who constantly meddle in the hockey operations.

The main thing to me is the Samuelis are local owners and very involved in the OC community in so many ways from growing youth hockey to buying and building ice/roller rinks to their philanthropic work. And at the time they bought the Mighty Ducks from Disney, there was a good chance a new owner from the outside could have moved the team if the OC hockey market didn't support the Ducks (which, let's face it, continues to be a concern), but since the Samuelis were OC residents and owned the arena management company running the Pond, there was almost no chance the team would be relocated.

 

[la patineuse]

I think most professional sports teams aren't profitable ventures for their owners unless the teams have huge licensing and advertising agreements and large network tv contracts (which the NHL definitely does not have). The more profitable sports teams also have owners who own the venues their teams use. While the Samuelis don't own the Honda Center, they own the operating rights. I think the Samuelis are concerned with the annual operating income of the team, but because they also own the rights to operating the Honda Center and they need a permanent tenant like a professional sports team in order to operate the Honda Center, as long as the overall net operating income for both the arena management company and the Ducks is positive, they are probably okay if the Ducks as a stand alone organization are not profitable. If their arena management company wasn't profitable and they didn't think it will continue to be profitable, they probably wouldn't have renewed their agreement with the city of Anaheim.

On the balance sheet side of things, the 15-year average ROI on the S&P 500 is just under 10%, so if the Ducks value has appreciated from $70M to $420M in 15 years, the annualized ROI is about 13.25%, so the Samuelis' investment has outpaced the stock market.

 

[Static]

So let’s say they lose 25M a year. 25 x 12 + 70 = 470M. Which, including inflation, is an even bigger loss.

Clearly I made that number up, but if they’re routinely losing 10-15M a year, it’s not that much more on a yearly basis to completely erase the entire ROI.

As one of the most successful teams of the last 10 years, one which routinely makes playoff runs which are pure profit for the owners, I would be absolutely shocked if they were losing money. I mean, come on.

 

[duxfan1101]

As one of the most successful teams of the last 10 years, one which routinely makes playoff runs which are pure profit for the owners, I would be absolutely shocked if they were losing money. I mean, come on.

This article is a few years old, but still relevant
Ducks owners are losing less money, plan to keep franchise in the family

 

[Static]

This article is a few years old, but still relevant
Ducks owners are losing less money, plan to keep franchise in the family

Fairly or unfairly I don't think I'll buy any financial information that any team puts out, and I could be absolutely wrong about it. But I don't trust the reports and there have been far too many cases of manipulation that can make the numbers say whatever people want them to. The only people who know the truth are the owners.

 

[70sSanO]

But I also know that the Samuelis have done more to grow Southern California hockey in 12 years than the Kings and Disney did in all the combined time before.

I won't disagree that the Samuelis have done a lot, but bringing Gretzky to SoCal had the biggest impact.

John

 

[Ducks DVM]

As one of the most successful teams of the last 10 years, one which routinely makes playoff runs which are pure profit for the owners, I would be absolutely shocked if they were losing money. I mean, come on.

They also have one of the lowest ticket prices in one of the smallest arenas in the league. Like I said, I know the accountants get ahold of things, but I find it very easy to believe that hockey is not a tremendously profitable endeavor for almost the entire league.

 

[Ducks DVM]

I won't disagree that the Samuelis have done a lot, but bringing Gretzky to SoCal had the biggest impact.

John

That’s a good point, but I’d argue that the impact 20 years from now when all the children of the current children in the leagues that the Samuelis have created are also buying hockey tickets will be exponentially more widespread. Gretzky to LA made that possible though, can’t argue that.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

Not that I’m not aware that the numbers are garbage and the accountants have had a field day with them. But I also know that the Samuelis have done more to grow Southern California hockey in 12 years than the Kings and Disney did in all the combined time before. I find it fair to complain if an owner is legitimately cheap like Bill Wirtz. I think it’s not fair to complain just because an owner isn’t profligate.

This is what people ought to keep in mind. Not only did they build a much better brand here than Disney ever did, they are hugely invested in making so cal a hockey destination. Also, there's no f***ing way they'd actually get 460 million if they sold the team. That may be its estimated value, but no way in hell is that the market value. This team operates at a loss and always will. Static, you make money in hockey through ticket sales, boxes and merch. We have one of tiniest buildings in the league with relatively few boxes. Notice how we have tweaked jerseys like every year? Their revenue streams are maxed. Billionaires need capital losses so no one should weep for them, but still. This is pretty clearly a passion/vanity project and they spend more than you'd expect given that.

 

[Static]

This is what people ought to keep in mind. Not only did they build a much better brand here than Disney ever did, they are hugely invested in making so cal a hockey destination. Also, there's no ****ing way they'd actually get 460 million if they sold the team. That may be its estimated value, but no way in hell is that the market value. This team operates at a loss and always will. Static, you make money in hockey through ticket sales, boxes and merch. We have one of tiniest buildings in the league with relatively few boxes. Notice how we have tweaked jerseys like every year? Their revenue streams are maxed. Billionaires need capital losses so no one should weep for them, but still. This is pretty clearly a passion/vanity project and they spend more than you'd expect given that.

This feels like grading on a curve and that I should be giving the billionaires the benefit of the doubt. The it probably could be worse defense. Which is true, but that doesn't mean I can't be annoyed by it.

Their "toy" isn't some private entity that only they use. I could give a shit if they maintain and/or upgrade their jetskis that only they use, but this is not that. They make money off of me wanting to go and watch their product. If they don't want to max out on the product on the ice, and lets me honest, we are one good player short of the cap, then why am I maxing out on it? It's a larger percentage of my disposable income than it is of theirs.

 

[Static]

And today's financial landscape is changing for pro sports as far as revenue streams. It is very true that the NHL more than others relies on ticket sales for income, but their TV deal is up in just about a year and that is going to bring in far more money than ever before. Don't think these owners don't know that.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

This feels like grading on a curve and that I should be giving the billionaires the benefit of the doubt. The it probably could be worse defense. Which is true, but that doesn't mean I can't be annoyed by it.

Their "toy" isn't some private entity that only they use. I could give a **** if they maintain and/or upgrade their jetskis that only they use, but this is not that. They make money off of me wanting to go and watch their product. If they don't want to max out on the product on the ice, and lets me honest, we are one good player short of the cap, then why am I maxing out on it? It's a larger percentage of my disposable income than it is of theirs.

Bring any curve you like, they're well ahead of it. Maybe being a capital B Billionaire means they don't get slack from Static but that's your perception problem, not theirs.

Whether or not we're agree on how they're doing as owners, I think your premise sucks. Don't spend your money if it pisses you off. You can require the owner to spend to the cap to justify the way you manage your own cash, but you have no idea what their disposable income is and never will. Measuring by percentage is crazy anyway, we're talking tens of millions of dollars here, only idiots throw that away without cause.

And there's no cause here, you say we're one good player short of the cap, I'll take your word for it because I haven't looked, but you're not going to tell me that we're one good player short of being a good team. We're not. So what's the point? Optics? And you don't know whether Murray has even asked them if he can spend it. Everything he's ever said points to then spending what he's asked, and there have been many times when we've been a cap team. There's nothing about them to indicate the least bit of stinginess! But you want more because billionaires.

Edit - think about this. The years we came close and didn't win, was the cause ever money? We've been a good team for a long time, the problems we've had are high-level operational problems: no set organizational philosophy, hesitancy, option paralysis. Tactically the franchise is brilliant: RFA contracts, drafting, amateur scouting especially. That's where the money comes in, and it always seems to be there. I just don't see any reasonable way to look at this team and think our problems are due to a money bottleneck. If the owners can be criticized for anything it's giving Murray too long a leash with Carlyle

 

[70sSanO]

The truth is, since the Samuelis have taken over, the Ducks are probably in the top 10 or close to it in wins. Overall they have put a good product on the ice and have only missed the playoffs twice since 2006. Granted we only have one cup, which is disappointing to us, but there is not a lot of incentive to spending more if you look at the past success while being on a budget.

I think we would need to have multiple seasons of missing the playoffs and finishing close to the bottom to see any cap spending changes.

John

 

[mightyquack]

How much more do you want them to spend? Like I said earlier, Anaheim has been a top cap team for the last 3 seasons (including this one). It's not a budget reason why BM isn't spending more money - it's because spending more money puts Anaheim into an absolute cap hell even more so then they are already in. I get it's been an issue in the past, but there have literally been cap spending changes in the last 3 seasons when this team had it's best chances to win the Cup since 2007, can't really ask more than that IMO.

It's not the owner's fault the GM has ended up with nearly 20m in dead cap on long term contracts on players who are either injured constantly, declined a huge amount or both which has limited his own ability to make moves.

 

[Static]

Bring any curve you like, they're well ahead of it. Maybe being a capital B Billionaire means they don't get slack from Static but that's your perception problem, not theirs.

Whether or not we're agree on how they're doing as owners, I think your premise sucks. Don't spend your money if it pisses you off. You can require the owner to spend to the cap to justify the way you manage your own cash, but you have no idea what their disposable income is and never will. Measuring by percentage is crazy anyway, we're talking tens of millions of dollars here, only idiots throw that away without cause.

And there's no cause here, you say we're one good player short of the cap, I'll take your word for it because I haven't looked, but you're not going to tell me that we're one good player short of being a good team. We're not. So what's the point? Optics? And you don't know whether Murray has even asked them if he can spend it. Everything he's ever said points to then spending what he's asked, and there have been many times when we've been a cap team. There's nothing about them to indicate the least best of stinginess! But you want more because billionaires.

Edit - think about this. The years we came close and didn't win, was the cause ever money? We've been a good team for a long time, the problems we've had are high-level operational problems: no set organizational philosophy, hesitancy, option paralysis. Tactically the franchise is brilliant: RFA contracts, drafting, amateur scouting especially. That's where the money comes in, and it always seems to be there. I just don't see any reasonable way to look at this team and think our problems are due to a money bottleneck. If the owners can be criticized for anything it's giving Murray too long a leash with Carlyle

One huge caveat: I'm wrong about our current spending. That one good player we can fit is Corey Perry on LTIR. I can f*** off for being wrong, there is nothing to complain about if we are at the limit.

Second, the relationship I see with the owners is a transactional one. I give them my money and they provide the product. I completely concede that if I don't like the transaction then I should walk away. That's also easier said than done with this type of product and I rarely see it happen. If my being annoyed with how they spend their money on the team is garbage then I will own it. I still feel that way.

Their business is predicated on people being entertained and engaged. Precedent points again and again and again and again to budget teams being at a disadvantage in this league. Want to know how many budget teams have won the cup in the cap era? One. The Carolina hurricanes 13 years ago.

One of our best teams in 2014-15 was nine million below the cap. The next year we were seven below. We cannot sit here and say the money doesn't matter. My annoyance does not com from a short term bout with budgetitis, it comes from a past of missing one more punch with multiple teams that could have put us over the top.

I can understand how me giving an opinion on how someone should spend his money is lame, but it's also not a one way street. My fandom doesn't matter in the micro sense but I am still a customer and do believe I at least have a right to feel annoyed if the product I've paid for seems undercooked.

 

[Static]

How much more do you want them to spend? Like I said earlier, Anaheim has been a top cap team for the last 3 seasons (including this one). It's not a budget reason why BM isn't spending more money - it's because spending more money puts Anaheim into an absolute cap hell even more so then they are already in. I get it's been an issue in the past, but there have literally been cap spending changes in the last 3 seasons when this team had it's best chances to win the Cup since 2007, can't really ask more than that IMO.

It's not the owner's fault the GM has ended up with nearly 20m in dead cap on long term contracts on players who are either injured constantly, declined a huge amount or both which has limited his own ability to make moves.

I was wrong to look at it recently and complain. I can't remember what our money looked like the last two years because of the complications with LTIR but this year we are pretty much tapped out. I didn't read our cap number correctly, and I'll own that.