Leafs for sale (cont'd).....
- Thread starter LittleHockeyFan
- Start date
Kin
New member
cw said:
Perhaps the best move, however, was installing Richard Peddie as MLSE CEO...The Toronto Maple Leafs have not won a Stanley Cup since 1967 and haven not made the playoffs for six seasons. Still, Peddie delivered the kind of financial results that sports owners really care about.
I'm actually tearing up a little bit here. You dream and you dream about a day like this as a fan of a sports brand and...words fail me.
Optimus Reimer
New member
Saint Nik said:
I will be breaking out a bottle of champagne in three weeks when Peddie finally retires. Good bye and good riddance. I will even volunteer to show him the way out and lock down the doors behind him to make sure he can't get back in.
hockeyfan1
New member
"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."
[/quote]
Rogers nor Bell would want their reputations tarnished so badly by at least not wanting to prop up their assets -- in this case, their sports teams, at the very least -- in order to maintain some semblance of respectability. All business owners know that having a 'loser' for too long (the actual physical assets not the ledger) does not bode too well when it comes to business responsibility in terms of success and accompishment.
Many may consider MLSE a winner on the accounting side of things (asset value, most valuable sports team(s) such as the Leafs as per Forbes, sports (hockey market), etc., etc.,), but, if one constantly sports a 'loser' on the physical side of things (worst records/hardly improving (Raptors), poor management/decision-making, futility (Jays, Leafs of earlier times, etc.), all these negatives do not make a positive and will eventually weigh on the reputation of said businesses.
Because the two new owners of MLSE are Bell & Rogers and largely because they are in the communcations industry -- broadcasting industry -- be it cellular, internet, cable, etc., etc. -- these companies not only will be appealing to their customers & potential consumers for their what they have the potential to offer now and gain even more in terms of everything, they also have the potential to lose even more as well.
Seriously, if the Leafs, Raptors, FC, and yes, even the Jays were to latch back into futility with not much improvement, would customers really want to download and watch any of these teams? Sure there would be plenty of people but probably the customer base may stay the same or stagnate.
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."
[/quote]
Rogers nor Bell would want their reputations tarnished so badly by at least not wanting to prop up their assets -- in this case, their sports teams, at the very least -- in order to maintain some semblance of respectability. All business owners know that having a 'loser' for too long (the actual physical assets not the ledger) does not bode too well when it comes to business responsibility in terms of success and accompishment.
Many may consider MLSE a winner on the accounting side of things (asset value, most valuable sports team(s) such as the Leafs as per Forbes, sports (hockey market), etc., etc.,), but, if one constantly sports a 'loser' on the physical side of things (worst records/hardly improving (Raptors), poor management/decision-making, futility (Jays, Leafs of earlier times, etc.), all these negatives do not make a positive and will eventually weigh on the reputation of said businesses.
Because the two new owners of MLSE are Bell & Rogers and largely because they are in the communcations industry -- broadcasting industry -- be it cellular, internet, cable, etc., etc. -- these companies not only will be appealing to their customers & potential consumers for their what they have the potential to offer now and gain even more in terms of everything, they also have the potential to lose even more as well.
Seriously, if the Leafs, Raptors, FC, and yes, even the Jays were to latch back into futility with not much improvement, would customers really want to download and watch any of these teams? Sure there would be plenty of people but probably the customer base may stay the same or stagnate.
maplesyrup
New member
Will it be any easier/cheaper for me to get tickets now? No? Well, I suppose I could care or less about who owns the Leafs then.
Photo from 2006
Peddie was working on Rogers for a long time
Rogers declines comment on report of Leafs purchase
Wed. Dec. 1 2010
hockeyfan1
New member
RedLeaf said:
I, too, look at it with some trepidation. While I'm certain that there will be plenty offered by these two, at what price? This will remain to be seen.
ZBBM
Active member
cw said:
cw, you didn't quote this part!
Perhaps the best move, however, was installing Richard Peddie as MLSE CEO. A marketing genius, Peddie absorbed a lot of the criticism from Toronto fans about the inability of the teams he presided over to win a championship. The Toronto Maple Leafs have not won a Stanley Cup since 1967 and haven not made the playoffs for six seasons. Still, Peddie delivered the kind of financial results that sports owners really care about.
EDIT: Haha, just saw that Nik already quoted it. ;D
BTW, the Forbes article carries a Leafs logo. That shows you what's important in this deal. Leafs > MLSE. Does MLSE even have a logo?
hockeyfan1
New member
Saint Nik said:
Not everyone is in the same vein as you, Nik. While it's true, generally speaking, that corporations prefer to cater to the younger or less entenched set due to a more eclectic outlook on products, (different brands and not necessarily loyalty to one brand, the way older people have a tendency to do), still, there are those like me (over '40s category) that wouldn't mind trying out different brands of the same product provided they offer the same quality and good pricing to entice me to try them in the first place.
With the newly-minted MLSE owners, let's hope they don't forget 'the little guy', the one who is not an avid in-person game goer but would enjoy to have access to more of his/her favourite team, at an affordable, likeable, doable, and respectable cost.
Zee
Active member
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:cw said:
cw, you didn't quote this part!
Perhaps the best move, however, was installing Richard Peddie as MLSE CEO. A marketing genius, Peddie absorbed a lot of the criticism from Toronto fans about the inability of the teams he presided over to win a championship. The Toronto Maple Leafs have not won a Stanley Cup since 1967 and haven not made the playoffs for six seasons. Still, Peddie delivered the kind of financial results that sports owners really care about.
EDIT: Haha, just saw that Nik already quoted it. ;D
BTW, the Forbes article carries a Leafs logo. That shows you what's important in this deal. Leafs > MLSE. Does MLSE even have a logo?
How would you like to be a TFC fan?
Tannebaum didn't even know the name of the MLS trophy. "we want the Stanley Cup, the NBA Championship and uh, the MLS thing...what's it called?"
Lol I paraphrased but that's basically what he said.
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:cw said:
cw, you didn't quote this part!
Perhaps the best move, however, was installing Richard Peddie as MLSE CEO. A marketing genius, Peddie absorbed a lot of the criticism from Toronto fans about the inability of the teams he presided over to win a championship. The Toronto Maple Leafs have not won a Stanley Cup since 1967 and haven not made the playoffs for six seasons. Still, Peddie delivered the kind of financial results that sports owners really care about.
EDIT: Haha, just saw that Nik already quoted it. ;D
BTW, the Forbes article carries a Leafs logo. That shows you what's important in this deal. Leafs > MLSE. Does MLSE even have a logo?
Just grabbed a chunk of the article. Nothing meant by the edit.
That's Forbes take and they're all about measuring the money. Peddie was about money too. It was a key part of his job and a key duty to those who employed him. But I don't think he wanted what happened to transpire. He wanted a winner like the rest of us.
Since taking over in 2003, what resources did Peddie not provide for the Leafs to win a championship? They spent plenty on payroll. Moved the Marlies. Built a practice facility. Substantially increased management staff and scouts. Etc. There was no asset any other team had in terms of resources that Peddie & MLSE would not provide their GM.
He made one big mistake with the Leafs: cutting Quinn loose when he did and hiring JFJ. At the time of the hiring, they did a professional search and not much was out there. So the chances were higher that he'd hire a bonehead of a GM. And he hired a bonehead GM before Colangelo for the Raptors.
But I think that was more of an error in judgement and control than it was motivated by trying to save MLSE an almighty buck.
What he did for the OTPP to make them the mountain of dough he did will probably wind up in sports business school curriculum - which was his Stanley Cup on the business side.
But for the rest of his life, imagine the grief he has taken and will continue to take for failing to win with the Leafs or Raptors. He has more money than he knows what to do with for his "retirement". I bet he'd pay millions out of his own pocket if he could avoid that grief for the rest of his life.
So I don't entirely buy Forbes take. Peddie failed to deliver a winner and I think there are limits to how much it meant to him personally to make a few million more vs going out a winner.
Propellertop
New member
So much for Hockey Night in Canada down the road. With Rogers and Bell, I'm sure that Sportsnet is going to get a big hunk of the Leafiness; it's in their best interest.
As for the other forms of 'communications' with regard to watching the games, you can be sure that they'll be thinly sliced and the dollars weighed to make sure they squeeze the most out of it.
Quite frankly, I was rather ambivalent over the Teacher's Pension Plan owning the majority stake because they didn't have an axe to grind and didn't want to take a 'hands on' approach to where MLSE was going. With Rogers and Bell, rather than a deep pockets owner, that just isn't going to be the case.
This could end rather badly for fans in the long run. I guess we'll just have to wait and see......
As for the other forms of 'communications' with regard to watching the games, you can be sure that they'll be thinly sliced and the dollars weighed to make sure they squeeze the most out of it.
Quite frankly, I was rather ambivalent over the Teacher's Pension Plan owning the majority stake because they didn't have an axe to grind and didn't want to take a 'hands on' approach to where MLSE was going. With Rogers and Bell, rather than a deep pockets owner, that just isn't going to be the case.
This could end rather badly for fans in the long run. I guess we'll just have to wait and see......
Optimus Reimer
New member
hockeyfan1 said:
Rogers nor Bell would want their reputations tarnished so badly by at least not wanting to prop up their assets -- in this case, their sports teams, at the very least -- in order to maintain some semblance of respectability. All business owners know that having a 'loser' for too long (the actual physical assets not the ledger) does not bode too well when it comes to business responsibility in terms of success and accompishment.
Many may consider MLSE a winner on the accounting side of things (asset value, most valuable sports team(s) such as the Leafs as per Forbes, sports (hockey market), etc., etc.,), but, if one constantly sports a 'loser' on the physical side of things (worst records/hardly improving (Raptors), poor management/decision-making, futility (Jays, Leafs of earlier times, etc.), all these negatives do not make a positive and will eventually weigh on the reputation of said businesses.
Because the two new owners of MLSE are Bell & Rogers and largely because they are in the communcations industry -- broadcasting industry -- be it cellular, internet, cable, etc., etc. -- these companies not only will be appealing to their customers & potential consumers for their what they have the potential to offer now and gain even more in terms of everything, they also have the potential to lose even more as well.
Seriously, if the Leafs, Raptors, FC, and yes, even the Jays were to latch back into futility with not much improvement, would customers really want to download and watch any of these teams? Sure there would be plenty of people but probably the customer base may stay the same or stagnate.
[/quote]
We are talking about the Leafs here. Last time I checked, its at least a 15 year wait for season tickets, and MLG or the ACC have been constant sell outs for Leaf games. Even when the Leafs sucked, the arena was sold out and a lot of people were watching on tv, although probably by the end of the second period, some tv viewers would switch to something else.
The loyalty of Leaf fans towards our team is second to none, so the viewership and ticket sales will always be there and should not be a concern to the new ownership group. The only thing with having a sucky product on the ice is the negative fan reaction towards the organization.