Zee
Active member
Fanatic said: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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Fanatic said:Lots of rhetoric and cliches. Not much else. Oh, wait, I did learn that the Raptors are an iconic brand.
Zee said:Bell says they're maintaining their stake in the Habs, how is that possible?
Optimus Reimer said:Zee said: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.
Optimus Reimer said:Darren Dreger out-scooping Bob Mackenzie??? HAHAHAHAHA
Dreger gets his scoops from Mackenzie.
Zee said:Bell says they're maintaining their stake in the Habs, how is that possible?
Leafaholic99 said:Optimus Reimer said:Darren Dreger out-scooping Bob Mackenzie??? HAHAHAHAHA
Dreger gets his scoops from Mackenzie.
Didnt they say Kypreos and McKenzie?
Peter D. said:Zee said: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.
cw said:Peter D. said:Zee said: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 said:cw said:Peter D. said:Zee said: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?
cw said:Zee said:cw said:Peter D. said:Zee said: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.
Deebo said:So if bell and Rogers disagree on something, Larry holds the deciding vote?
Zee said:cw said:Zee said:cw said:Peter D. said:Zee said: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.
cw said: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)