OT: Samueli's Broadcom Bought Out for 37 Billion

[Ducksforcup]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/antoine...billion-as-semiconductor-dealmaking-heats-up/

Anaheim Ducks owner Henry Samueli will still be involved as C.T.O. of this newly combined company.

Thought it was relevant to the Ducks since it involves the owner.

Sure Henry is a much richer man today than he was a week ago. Has to be good news for Anaheim fans everywhere.

 

[KaseMeOutside]

can't spend to the cap tho

 

[GreatBear]

I'm not sure that it matters too much. Once you get your first billion, the money just sort of keeps rolling in.

 

[la patineuse]

Dr. Samueli had been divesting and selling off substantial amounts of Broadcom stock recently (he's filed at least twice with the SEC recently), so this is why I guess.

 

[duckaroosky]

I want 37 billion

 

[Sojourn]

can't spend to the cap tho

When you are worth a billion dollars, you'll be in a better position to criticize someone for their financial decisions. Having money doesn't mean you should be stupid about how you spend it.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

When you are worth a billion dollars, you'll be in a better position to criticize someone for their financial decisions. Having money doesn't mean you should be stupid about how you spend it.

But owning a sports team does mean you might have to lose money to be elite. This is not just a business.

 

[snarktacular]

Yes he's a billionaire. His income is probably on the order of single to double digit millions. Maybe in the hundred of million.

To spend to the cap you're asking him to throw in a significant proportion of his salary.

Do you own a house? You're probably close to a millionaire (once it's paid off that is). Only a fraction of that is income, and only a fraction is liquid.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

Yes he's a billionaire. His income is probably on the order of single to double digit millions. Maybe in the hundred of million.

To spend to the cap you're asking him to throw in a significant proportion of his salary.

Do you own a house? You're probably close to a millionaire (once it's paid off that is). Only a fraction of that is income, and only a fraction is liquid.

I like Samueli as an owner. No complaints. But I think that looking at money spent only from the owner's perspective is missing the whole point of running a sports franchise. It is not just a business.

But speaking just from a business perspective, business losses are deductible. That matters, especially to folks in his tax bracket.

 

[Sojourn]

But owning a sports team does mean you might have to lose money to be elite. This is not just a business.

I agree, it isn't just a business, but it is still a business and this isn't Monopoly money that Keerole is talking about. Snark pretty much covered the rest of it. It's easy to be critical of someone else's financial decisions, when they don't impact you in the least. When push comes to shove, most people are far, far less willing to sacrifice their own money. No matter how much it is, really.

On the matter of our owner, though, I also don't think his hesitation to spend to the cap is holding us back in any substantial way. It doesn't appear, to me, that we're missing out on signings that we would otherwise have access to. Or that we're letting players go we would otherwise keep. About the worst I can say is that we weren't in a position for one of those absurd, broken, retirement contracts that the league cracked down on(too little too late, in my opinion), but that may also be a blessing in disguise. It's also worth noting that few teams were in that position, and spending to the cap was definitely not the issue there. Oh sure, there are plenty of deals or trades we'd like to see made, but those are typically just fantasies, and they don't really become any more likely just because we have a few extra million to spend.

 

[snarktacular]

I like Samueli as an owner. No complaints. But I think that looking at money spent only from the owner's perspective is missing the whole point of running a sports franchise. It is not just a business.

But speaking just from a business perspective, business losses are deductible. That matters, especially to folks in his tax bracket.

I expect a team to be run just as a business. If the owner is better than that (which Samueli is), then that's great, but I don't feel right to demand it.

My main deal is just that I don't like the "he's a ____-aire, he should spend more."

I also want people to understand that like 80% of the teams are expected to spend near the midpoint. Not the cap max. That's how the NHL made the system.

 

[Nurmagomedov]

I feel there's quite a few teams in the league that would benefit from a more stringent owner. Imposing financial constraints makes GM's make painful decisions like letting Bells go at the end of the season. It also means the GM has to look at free agency as a source of complementary pieces rather than franchise building ones. Thereby reducing the amount of cap-demolishing contracts handed out.

 

[Goose of Reason]

I feel there's quite a few teams in the league that would benefit from a more stringent owner. Imposing financial constraints makes GM's make painful decisions like letting Bells go at the end of the season. It also means the GM has to look at free agency as a source of complementary pieces rather than franchise building ones. Thereby reducing the amount of cap-demolishing contracts handed out.

Agreed, as Sojourn said we haven't really lost anybody due to purely financial issues. They have to really be worth it, and I'm sure if Bob makes a good enough case as to why a player should stay or be signed the Samuelis will allow it.

 

[gratefulyours]

1 billion in stocks can net you 20 million a year in dividends alone (2% on stable companies is not that hard to find). stock actually going up is just gravy.

losing some money on this franchise won't mean much to him financially. doesn't mean it won't hurt his ego, or that he will like it.

 

[snarktacular]

1 billion in stocks can net you 20 million a year in dividends alone (2% on stable companies is not that hard to find). stock actually going up is just gravy.

losing some money on this franchise won't mean much to him financially. doesn't mean it won't hurt his ego, or that he will like it.

Sure, let's say 20 million a year in dividends. So say he earns 10 million a year more in executive salary/bonuses/stocks. Now you want him to spend to the cap. Is he supposed to spend 1/3 of his gross income every year to field a cap team? This is ignoring taxes BTW.

If he wanted to do it he could probably afford it. But it's not like us throwing a couple hundred. It is a significant amount.

 

[Static]

Wouldn't he make whatever the difference is in budget back during the playoffs provided they spent the money prudently?

There are no guarantees, obviously, but I'm sure Henry would make his money back in the postseason if he increased the budget by five million.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

I agree, it isn't just a business, but it is still a business and this isn't Monopoly money that Keerole is talking about. Snark pretty much covered the rest of it. It's easy to be critical of someone else's financial decisions, when they don't impact you in the least. When push comes to shove, most people are far, far less willing to sacrifice their own money. No matter how much it is, really.

On the matter of our owner, though, I also don't think his hesitation to spend to the cap is holding us back in any substantial way. It doesn't appear, to me, that we're missing out on signings that we would otherwise have access to. Or that we're letting players go we would otherwise keep. About the worst I can say is that we weren't in a position for one of those absurd, broken, retirement contracts that the league cracked down on(too little too late, in my opinion), but that may also be a blessing in disguise. It's also worth noting that few teams were in that position, and spending to the cap was definitely not the issue there. Oh sure, there are plenty of deals or trades we'd like to see made, but those are typically just fantasies, and they don't really become any more likely just because we have a few extra million to spend.

Sure. He's a good owner. He's hired competent people to run this franchise which is why he needn't worry about losing his shirt every year. That's part of why he's a billionaire.

Sure, let's say 20 million a year in dividends. So say he earns 10 million a year more in executive salary/bonuses/stocks. Now you want him to spend to the cap. Is he supposed to spend 1/3 of his gross income every year to field a cap team? This is ignoring taxes BTW.

If he wanted to do it he could probably afford it. But it's not like us throwing a couple hundred. It is a significant amount.

Significant when considered as a percentage but not when considered by overall impact. If we're assuming $30M in annual personal income, less taxes, we're talking about just that - his personal finances. The Ducks bring in cash, so does the Pond, and lord knows whatever else he's got going on. Unless we're assuming that he's spending $20M annually on personal expenditure projects, which I'm pretty sure only rappers do, then no, spending 1/3 of his income is not going to impact his life significantly.

It may impact his plans for his businesses or his investments, but the Ducks are numbered among those. It should also be remembered that this is a man who has made multi-million dollar charitable gifts on numerous occasions. These kinds of lump-sum payouts are not unheard of for him. And moreover, we really have no idea what his actual personal loss is on the Ducks. The reported loss is almost certainly not the figure that the Ducks are actually in the red as a discrete unit of his entire financial portfolio. It's just however his taxes worked out.

Wouldn't he make whatever the difference is in budget back during the playoffs provided they spent the money prudently?

There are no guarantees, obviously, but I'm sure Henry would make his money back in the postseason if he increased the budget by five million.

This is another good point. It isn't accurate to act as if spending to the cap is a pure loss. There is the chance of playoff revenue (not likely to recoup all the costs given the market), then there's the market itself -- where winning has been proven to increase gate receipts. It also (I presume) increases merchandise sales and helps with local and regional broadcasting deals.

And it's not as if he's been averse to that kind of ancillary goal spending. He's created a huge new intramural league, he's purchased ice rinks, he bought an entire minor league team. I think he knows the value of investing in the market. So in that sense, too, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask to spend to the cap.

And please remember two things: I have no criticisms of the way Samueli has operated the Ducks; and I'd expect him to spend to the cap (and thus lose money) where appropriate for the franchise. By which I mean, appropriate to create or maintain a contending, elite team.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

I'm an NBA Clipper fan. Before the Clippers got lucky with Blake Griffin, we were in mediocrity. Finally, we had a coach, then turned GM to open up the former owner's wallet. Built their own practice facility, started paying for high priced FA's and then we started seeing playoffs.

Now, we got a new owner who overpaid for the Clippers by $1.3 Billion!!!! We have two max players on our team in Griffin and Chris Paul. A third player will demand something similar on the team or he walks.

I'm with Spicy here. The new owner is a double digit billionaire. And if he wants to continue success, then he needs to spend and overspend.

With Samueli's... hopefully, they'll eventually end up near the cap with so many young defenders soon to reach their third contracts, Kesler, and whoever else. Plus, showing a winning product in Anaheim will translate to the high school hockey that Samueli's have devised along with bringing AHL hockey to Cali. Creating a tradition is expensive.

 

[Quack Shot]

Awesome news for him.

P.S. the adds that pop up now on mobile version make it unbearable for me to go on HF now. Mods please do something

 

[IDuck]

we have a great owner...his best work is putting/keeping the people he has in place that run the ducks....his love/approach for the ducks is all just icing IMO

 

[camshaft]

Sure, let's say 20 million a year in dividends. So say he earns 10 million a year more in executive salary/bonuses/stocks. Now you want him to spend to the cap. Is he supposed to spend 1/3 of his gross income every year to field a cap team? This is ignoring taxes BTW.

If he wanted to do it he could probably afford it. But it's not like us throwing a couple hundred. It is a significant amount.

When the Ducks make it into the Conference Finals, Ducks should be making a pretty good profit, and if they make it to Stanley Cup Finals, they should be making over $20 million. Assuming that the average ticket price for Westerns Conference Finals is $300, the gate revenue is $5 million per game, and the Cup Finals would even be more than that. So now that they are serious Cup contenders, they are most likely to be a cap team.

 

[ADHB]

Also, the more success the team has, it should translate to more revenue whether it be from higher number of season ticket holders, deeper playoff runs, more merchandising, tv ratings, sponsorships etc. etc. All that increases the value of the franchise, and it's already worth roughly 5x what he paid for it. So while he may be taking a loss in operating expenses year-to-year, he most certainly is not losing money overall.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

I can't believe people think that in a cap constrained environment, spending to the cap insures any kind of success. This team has not missed out on winning a cup for lack of spending. They've probably done a better job of putting together a consistently good team because they couldn't just throw money at every decision. They had to be smarter than the Torontos of the world.

As for the playoffs, while it is a boon to the team owner, a very large chunk of that money goes to the league and the players. It doesn't all go straight into Henry's pocket.

Henry has done an excellent job of investing in hockey within the community and is doing more to grow the sport than the previous owner ever did. People need to stop telling him how to spend his money. He knows how, a lot better than anybody here does.

 

[Kalv]

Shout out to Samueli`s also for growing the game in Cali. That high school league and stuff

 

[Nurmagomedov]

When the Ducks make it into the Conference Finals, Ducks should be making a pretty good profit, and if they make it to Stanley Cup Finals, they should be making over $20 million. Assuming that the average ticket price for Westerns Conference Finals is $300, the gate revenue is $5 million per game, and the Cup Finals would even be more than that. So now that they are serious Cup contenders, they are most likely to be a cap team.

That's what Toronto would do. Smaller markets do around a million per playoff game. That's around 9 million so far this year which is still divided up. I'd expect the team to break even or be slightly profitable this year if Forbes numbers about previous losses are accurate.

One thing that should be said is that uncle Henry has made an absolute killing on the franchise value during his tenure. 70->400+ million in 10 years. Even if it's unrealized, it must stilll feel pretty good. Not that i'd weant him to sell, he's an excellent owner.