Leafs for sale (cont'd).....

[Zee]

Lots of rhetoric and cliches. Not much else.  Oh, wait, I did learn that the Raptors are an iconic brand.

The NBA would crumble without the Raptors.

 

[Optimus Reimer]

Bell says they're maintaining their stake in the Habs, how is that possible?

I read in the Sun this morning that Bell cannot own into 2 different hockey teams, and would have to divest out of the Habs.

But that came from the Sun, and I take that information with skepticism.

 

[Zee]

Bell says they're maintaining their stake in the Habs, how is that possible?

I read in the Sun this morning that Bell cannot own into 2 different hockey teams, and would have to divest out of the Habs.

But that came from the Sun, and I take that information with skepticism.

Maybe cause they're minority owner?  I have no idea how it works.

 

[Optimus Reimer]

Darren Dreger out-scooping Bob Mackenzie???  HAHAHAHAHA

Dreger gets his scoops from Mackenzie.

 

[Leafaholic99]

Darren Dreger out-scooping Bob Mackenzie???  HAHAHAHAHA

Dreger gets his scoops from Mackenzie.

Didnt they say Kypreos and McKenzie?

 

[Zee]

@TSNBobMcKenzie
Just to correct something I said on the air: Bell will NOT have to divest itself of MTL ownership in order to own TOR.

 

[Peter D.]

Bell says they're maintaining their stake in the Habs, how is that possible?

I've read that Bell acquired a 28% direct interest, and the other 9.5% was acquired by a private investor (which Bell will manage).  Since Bell directly owns less than 30% of the Leafs (the threshold the NHL allows), they can continue to own the Canadiens.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I get that every reporter thought of the genius question of asking how this deal would effect the fans, but couldn't they all have crossed that one off after it was asked the first time?

 

[Optimus Reimer]

Darren Dreger out-scooping Bob Mackenzie???  HAHAHAHAHA

Dreger gets his scoops from Mackenzie.

Didnt they say Kypreos and McKenzie?

I thought they said Dreger, but I could be wrong.  If it was Kypreos, I think Kypreos is much better than Dreger.  Dreger is just bloody annoying.

 

[Zee]

Great, Bell pension plan... 

 

[cw]

Bell says they're maintaining their stake in the Habs, how is that possible?

I've read that Bell acquired a 28% direct interest, and the other 9.5% was acquired by a private investor (which Bell will manage).  Since Bell directly owns less than 30% of the Leafs (the threshold the NHL allows), they can continue to own the Canadiens.

Bell's pension fund owns the balance to reach 37.5%. So Bell combined has the same net control as Rogers. Probably one director will come from the Bell Pension fund and combine with other Bell directors to match Rogers directors on the board.

 

[Zee]

Bell says they're maintaining their stake in the Habs, how is that possible?

I've read that Bell acquired a 28% direct interest, and the other 9.5% was acquired by a private investor (which Bell will manage).  Since Bell directly owns less than 30% of the Leafs (the threshold the NHL allows), they can continue to own the Canadiens.

Bell's pension fund owns the balance to reach 37.5%. So Bell combined has the same net control as Rogers. Probably one director will come from the Bell Pension fund and combine with other Bell directors to match Rogers directors on the board.

I don't know how they manage to get around that.  Sure "Bell" owns 28%, but even George said that in effect they're equal partners with 37.5% each.  Basically just putting it under a different name and they skirt the issue of more than 30% owernship?

 

[Mikhail Bloodnovsky]

This is gonna be so dysfunctional. It's not good news at all.

 

[cw]

Bell says they're maintaining their stake in the Habs, how is that possible?

I've read that Bell acquired a 28% direct interest, and the other 9.5% was acquired by a private investor (which Bell will manage).  Since Bell directly owns less than 30% of the Leafs (the threshold the NHL allows), they can continue to own the Canadiens.

Bell's pension fund owns the balance to reach 37.5%. So Bell combined has the same net control as Rogers. Probably one director will come from the Bell Pension fund and combine with other Bell directors to match Rogers directors on the board.

I don't know how they manage to get around that.  Sure "Bell" owns 28%, but even George said that in effect they're equal partners with 37.5% each.  Basically just putting it under a different name and they skirt the issue of more than 30% owernship?

Looks like it.

I haven't checked the by-laws to verify the 30% rule. I believe that minority ownership has been allowed to exist on two teams for a period of time previously in the NHL.

This may all be smoke to allow Bell an orderly time to dispose of their holdings in the Habs. If folks know Bell has to unload it, they'd get beaten down on the price. The deal doesn't close until June 30th or so anyway.

I thought that press conference was pretty terrible. It was a corporate love-in for their juicy deal and not lots of substance for the fans. I was kind of embarrassed for them. If fans wanted to describe how out of touch these folks are and where the ownership concerns are, the video of that PC would do well as exhibit one. It might have made a good PC for a big stock investment presented to business reporters but it was lacking for basic sports fans.

To balance that criticism, they did say:
1. MLSE will remain a CDN owned company
2. Winning helps sell their media and they're committed to trying to win (it rang a little hollow among all the cliches for me)
3. They think MLSE is a great company

They did take a little of the edge off my concern about more broadcast dollars coming out of fans pockets. The thrust they emphasized was that they hope to make all their sports broadcasts available on wireless devices - which is a new market for them and fair that they make a few bucks doing that in my opinion.

EDIT: One area of concern was that they defended questioning competition for broadcasts. They tried to sell it that the competition for broadcasting would be enhanced. That smelled a little to me because basically, as part of this agreement, Rogers & Bell have already haggled how they'll split up the Leafs games that the team has rights to. So if the CBC or any other CDN broadcaster had been interested in bidding for those rights, that bid is over effectively for the balance of time these two own the club.

Now they bought it so maybe that's their right. But the competition for broadcasting those games is now an internal one between those two.

So that rang a little hollow.

 

[Zee]

Bell says they're maintaining their stake in the Habs, how is that possible?

I've read that Bell acquired a 28% direct interest, and the other 9.5% was acquired by a private investor (which Bell will manage).  Since Bell directly owns less than 30% of the Leafs (the threshold the NHL allows), they can continue to own the Canadiens.

Bell's pension fund owns the balance to reach 37.5%. So Bell combined has the same net control as Rogers. Probably one director will come from the Bell Pension fund and combine with other Bell directors to match Rogers directors on the board.

I don't know how they manage to get around that.  Sure "Bell" owns 28%, but even George said that in effect they're equal partners with 37.5% each.  Basically just putting it under a different name and they skirt the issue of more than 30% owernship?

Looks like it.

I haven't checked the by-laws to verify the 30% rule. I believe that minority ownership has been allowed to exist on two teams for a period of time previously in the NHL.

This may all be smoke to allow Bell an orderly time to dispose of their holdings in the Habs. If folks know Bell has to unload it, they'd get beaten down on the price. The deal doesn't close until June 30th or so anyway.

I thought that press conference was pretty terrible. It was a corporate love-in for their juicy deal and not lots of substance for the fans. I was kind of embarrassed for them. If fans wanted to describe how out of touch these folks are and where the ownership concerns are, the video of that PC would do well as exhibit one. It might have made a good PC for a big stock investment presented to business reporters but it was lacking for basic sports fans.

To balance that criticism, they did say:
1. MLSE will remain a CDN owned company
2. Winning helps sell their media and they're committed to trying to win (it rang a little hollow among all the cliches for me)
3. They think MLSE is a great company

They did take a little of the edge off my concern about more broadcast dollars coming out of fans pockets. The thrust they emphasized was that they hope to make all their sports broadcasts available on wireless devices - which is a new market for them and fair that they make a few bucks doing that in my opinion.

I have to agree with you here.  I can't see this being a smooth partnership by any means.  Rogers guy was taking pot shots at Bell during their conference, WTF?  I understand they're rivals but to go into a mega partnership like this and then continue to harp on how they're better than the competition during the conference?  Rogers kept on harping about how they want Sportsnet to be the #1 sports brand -- so Rogers is focused on squeezing out TSN while at the same time trying to build "winners" with the Leafs?  I can see behind the scenes major fights between Rogers and Bell.

 

[Redleaf]

So if bell and Rogers disagree on something, Larry holds the deciding vote?

If that's true, he's gonna be putting out A LOT of fires. This is like Pepsi and Coke buying a team together. They DON'T LIKE each other.

 

[cw]

Bell says they're maintaining their stake in the Habs, how is that possible?

I've read that Bell acquired a 28% direct interest, and the other 9.5% was acquired by a private investor (which Bell will manage).  Since Bell directly owns less than 30% of the Leafs (the threshold the NHL allows), they can continue to own the Canadiens.

Bell's pension fund owns the balance to reach 37.5%. So Bell combined has the same net control as Rogers. Probably one director will come from the Bell Pension fund and combine with other Bell directors to match Rogers directors on the board.

I don't know how they manage to get around that.  Sure "Bell" owns 28%, but even George said that in effect they're equal partners with 37.5% each.  Basically just putting it under a different name and they skirt the issue of more than 30% owernship?

Looks like it.

I haven't checked the by-laws to verify the 30% rule. I believe that minority ownership has been allowed to exist on two teams for a period of time previously in the NHL.

This may all be smoke to allow Bell an orderly time to dispose of their holdings in the Habs. If folks know Bell has to unload it, they'd get beaten down on the price. The deal doesn't close until June 30th or so anyway.

I thought that press conference was pretty terrible. It was a corporate love-in for their juicy deal and not lots of substance for the fans. I was kind of embarrassed for them. If fans wanted to describe how out of touch these folks are and where the ownership concerns are, the video of that PC would do well as exhibit one. It might have made a good PC for a big stock investment presented to business reporters but it was lacking for basic sports fans.

To balance that criticism, they did say:
1. MLSE will remain a CDN owned company
2. Winning helps sell their media and they're committed to trying to win (it rang a little hollow among all the cliches for me)
3. They think MLSE is a great company

They did take a little of the edge off my concern about more broadcast dollars coming out of fans pockets. The thrust they emphasized was that they hope to make all their sports broadcasts available on wireless devices - which is a new market for them and fair that they make a few bucks doing that in my opinion.

I have to agree with you here.  I can't see this being a smooth partnership by any means.  Rogers guy was taking pot shots at Bell during their conference, WTF?  I understand they're rivals but to go into a mega partnership like this and then continue to harp on how they're better than the competition during the conference?  Rogers kept on harping about how they want Sportsnet to be the #1 sports brand -- so Rogers is focused on squeezing out TSN while at the same time trying to build "winners" with the Leafs?  I can see behind the scenes major fights between Rogers and Bell.

Note: I edited the post quoted in my previous post.

Tanenbaum was a figurehead CEO. Now, he has a little more power as the tie breaker when these two don't agree. Their by-laws will be setup to deal with tiebreakers (via the # of directors) = Larry when those two knock heads. I don't see it as a big problem in that respect.

I also agree to some extent with their claim that it is more to their advantage to field a winner than it was for MLSE. Winners do boost ratings. And ratings help them make money. So although making money is important to them as it was for MLSE, a way they can make even more money beyond the team doing well is by their ratings getting boosted by a good team. They have a little more financial incentive to win.

 

[cw]

Have to wonder what will happen to folks like Ulmer and Henny. Do MLSE continue to need their own media when they're owned by two major sports media companies?

I also wonder about the media coverage going forward. I can't believe as many reporters on TSN or Sportsnet will be as inclined to bash the Leafs and the new billion dollar asset their employer bought for them.

Bell also has some interest in the Globe & Star I think (or they did)

 

[Zee]

Have to wonder what will happen to folks like Ulmer and Henny. Do MLSE continue to need their own media when they're owned by two major sports media companies?

I also wonder about the media coverage going forward. I can't believe as many reporters on TSN or Sportsnet will be as inclined to bash the Leafs and the new billion dollar asset their employer bought for them.

Bell also has some interest in the Globe & Star I think (or they did)

Damian Cox looking over his shoulder?

I expect all the "reporters" who only work for LeafsTV will be feeling really nervous right now.

 

[cw]

Forbes:
Ontario Teachers Ink The Greatest Sports Deal In History
None of this could have seemed possible in 1994 when Ontario Teachers? invested $50 million for a 49% stake in the Toronto Maple Leafs and its run down hockey arena.
...
Indeed, it?s nearly impossible to find a sports investment that is comparable to MLSE. The Steinbrenner family is sitting on a similarly large kind of financial gain with the New York Yankees and its related assets, but the family has yet to realize the profits. Other sports owners have done well owning sports teams, but none have realized the massive-sized gain Ontario Teachers? is now achieving. The big winners here: 295,000 teachers in Ontario, both active and retired.