Ask in the Canadian broadband forum. I *think* it was during oral hearings, maybe to the press as well. Not sure if it was in any of their rulings or reports.

Think their may be topic on it in that forum as well.

actions · 2012-Jan-27 4:41 pm · (locked)

Place Bets
@videotron.ca

Place Bets to Gone

Anon

2012-Jan-27 4:41 pm

to Gone

If i'm not mistaken, Rogers now has a stake in Cogeco.

Ideally it should be Videotron or Shaw. But it would likely turn out to be Rogers.

So if I were a betting man I would place my money on Rogers.

actions · 2012-Jan-27 4:41 pm · (locked)

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

Gone

Premium Member

2012-Jan-27 4:46 pm

said by Place Bets :

Rogers owns a small percentage, it's nothing significant and I don't believe they have any sort of controlling rights, either.

I suspect it would be Shaw because, ultimately, they would be the ones willing to pay the most money for it. This situation happened in Hamilton - Mountain originally went to Rogers, but they wouldn't pay up so they went to Shaw instead. I believe Eastlink was also involved, but Cogeco was excluded (can't say I'm surprised, Cogeco had been pestering them to buy the company for years)

actions · 2012-Jan-27 4:46 pm · (locked)

peterboro (banned)
Avatars are for posers
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON

peterboro (banned) to elwoodblues

Member

2012-Jan-27 5:03 pm

to elwoodblues

said by elwoodblues:

Rule #1 never let anyone near your bank account or credit card, when they screw you over for money the bank and credit card company will not protect you.

Bell tried last month with me on my final bill to pay past the end of the contract and wait for them to send a refund cheque.

Ha, ha, ha nice try douche bags, send me a proper bill and I may or may not pay it on time.

And if you give me a late fee as your system can't bill properly expect to get a CCTS bill for $25.00 for a $2.00 late fee.

actions · 2012-Jan-27 5:03 pm · (locked)

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

Gone

Premium Member

2012-Jan-27 5:08 pm

The fun thing about Bell is that they have a bad habit of sending you to collections for your final bill even though you might not yet have received a final statement. Happened to the wife when she cancelled her Bell cell phone a year ago and happened to us at the store when we moved all our phone lines to Allstream. They're nasty bastards when an account is closed.

While I have no doubt that you know the ins and outs of fighting them for pulling such a stunt (and heh, I probably would too) most people wouldn't and would panic and fire off a cheque the moment someone is calling them and threatening their credit rating.

actions · 2012-Jan-27 5:08 pm · (locked)

peterboro (banned)
Avatars are for posers
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON

peterboro (banned) to Place Bets

Member

2012-Jan-27 5:11 pm

to Place Bets

said by Place Bets :

If i'm not mistaken, Rogers now has a stake in Cogeco.

A significant enough stake to hold off Telus or Shaw. The red vans will cruise the Peterborough streets soon enough.

actions · 2012-Jan-27 5:11 pm · (locked)

peterboro

peterboro (banned) to Gone

Member

2012-Jan-27 5:14 pm

to Gone

said by Gone:

Good for them I don't need credit for the foreseeable future. Besides if I did all one has to do is mention it's Bell and a river of sympathy flows from any lending institution staff.

actions · 2012-Jan-27 5:14 pm · (locked)

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

Gone to peterboro

Premium Member

2012-Jan-27 5:23 pm

to peterboro

said by peterboro:

A significant enough stake to hold off Telus or Shaw. The red vans will cruise the Peterborough streets soon enough.

As I understand it, the Audet Family's stake is still large enough that they have the ultimate say over a sale. Rogers may own a stake, but if Shaw did come out and purchase it all it would mean is that Rogers would end up owning a much smaller piece of Shaw as a whole - that is, unless the CRTC forces them to sell it.

actions · 2012-Jan-27 5:23 pm · (locked)

peterboro (banned)
Avatars are for posers
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON

peterboro (banned)

Member

2012-Jan-27 5:26 pm

It also means the Rogers stake while not able to block becomes a hostile factor necessitating a higher purchase price that may not garner the return or market influence metric they want.

actions · 2012-Jan-27 5:26 pm · (locked)

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

Gone

Premium Member

2012-Jan-27 5:28 pm

said by peterboro:

It also means the Rogers stake while not able to block becomes a hostile factor necessitating a higher purchase price that may not garner the return or market influence metric they want.

Right, but that's a bit different than saying that Rogers has the ability to block any sale. They might be an annoyance, but ultimately the Audet's have the final say.

actions · 2012-Jan-27 5:28 pm · (locked)

peterboro (banned)
Avatars are for posers
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON

peterboro (banned)

Member

2012-Jan-27 5:33 pm

said by Gone:

Right, but that's a bit different than saying that Rogers has the ability to block any sale.

While semantic in nature share price is a defacto block in the world of M&A.

actions · 2012-Jan-27 5:33 pm · (locked)

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

Davesnothere to Gone

Premium Member

2012-Jan-27 7:37 pm

to Gone

said by Gone:

Rogers owns a small percentage [of Cogeco].

It's nothing significant and I don't believe they have any sort of controlling rights, either....

Just a 'small' 30 to 40%, yes.

But some are indeed 'non-voting' shares, I heard.

actions · 2012-Jan-27 7:37 pm · (locked)

jfmezei
Premium Member
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC

jfmezei

Premium Member

2012-Jan-27 7:59 pm

Last I looked, the Audet family has special shares with something like 10 votes per share, while Rogers has 1 vote per share. The end result is that the Audet more than have full control of the company while folks like Rogers just benefit from the return on investment (but likely have a seat on the board to "suggest" things.)

By being best buddies with the Audet family, Rogers probbaly has a prime seat for when they are ready to sell.

actions · 2012-Jan-27 7:59 pm · (locked)

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

Davesnothere

Premium Member

2012-Jan-27 8:10 pm

said by jfmezei:

....The end result is that the Audet more than have full control of the company while folks like Rogers just benefit from the return on investment (but likely have a seat on the board to ~~"suggest" things~~ " GOLF.) ....

Yes, however I fixed something for you there.

(though some folks here may not 'get it'.)

actions · 2012-Jan-27 8:10 pm · (locked)

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

1 edit

Gone to Davesnothere

Premium Member

2012-Jan-27 8:20 pm

to Davesnothere

said by Davesnothere:

said by Gone:

Rogers owns a small percentage [of Cogeco].

It's nothing significant and I don't believe they have any sort of controlling rights, either....

Just a 'small' 30 to 40%, yes.

But some are indeed 'non-voting' shares, I heard.

you sure? I thought it was less than 15%? I'd check right now bit I'm on my phone.
Edit - Meh I found it anyway, and I was almost right its a tad over 15%
»www.crtc.gc.ca/ownership ··· ht43.pdf nowhere near 30-40.

actions · 2012-Jan-27 8:20 pm · (locked)

jfmezei
Premium Member
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC

1 edit

jfmezei

Premium Member

2012-Jan-27 8:31 pm

I think they have a 40% in equity, but a very small portion in votes.

actions · 2012-Jan-27 8:31 pm · (locked)

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

1 edit

Davesnothere

Premium Member

2012-Jan-27 8:34 pm

40 RedBulls

actions · 2012-Jan-27 8:34 pm · (locked)

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

Gone to jfmezei

Premium Member

2012-Jan-27 8:36 pm

to jfmezei

Well, the CRTC docs say their ownership is only 16% or so. They used to own more but I believe they sold it back to the Audet's a few years back.

actions · 2012-Jan-27 8:36 pm · (locked)

jfmezei
Premium Member
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC

jfmezei to Gone

Premium Member

2012-Jan-27 8:40 pm

to Gone

said by Gone:

[
»www.crtc.gc.ca/ownership ··· ht43.pdf nowhere near 30-40.

From the top right of that document:

##
Les pourcentages font reference aux droits de vote seulement / The percentages refer to voting rights only
##

actions · 2012-Jan-27 8:40 pm · (locked)

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

Gone

Premium Member

2012-Jan-27 8:43 pm

Ah I missed that. I'll try to dig up more when I get to a computer.

actions · 2012-Jan-27 8:43 pm · (locked)

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

Davesnothere to jfmezei

Premium Member

2012-Jan-27 9:25 pm

to jfmezei

said by jfmezei:

said by Gone:

»www.crtc.gc.ca/ownership ··· ht43.pdf

....The percentages refer to voting rights only

What is the URL of the parent page for that doc ?

I'd be curious to examine the equivalent sheets for B$ELL and some of the others.

actions · 2012-Jan-27 9:25 pm · (locked)

Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON

Gone

Premium Member

2012-Jan-27 9:29 pm

»www.crtc.gc.ca/ownership ··· _org.htm

And yeah, Rogers has ~40% of the equity in Cogeco Inc and 23% of Cogeco Cable, but the voting shares are much much lower as indicated on the charts. Henri Audet has something like 80% of those.

actions · 2012-Jan-27 9:29 pm · (locked)

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

Davesnothere

Premium Member

2012-Jan-28 5:42 am

said by Gone:

Thanks.

actions · 2012-Jan-28 5:42 am · (locked)

dillyhammer
START me up
Premium Member
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON

dillyhammer to ruddypict

Premium Member

2012-Mar-3 8:40 am

to ruddypict

Cogeco's insane pricing

Why TPIA in Cogecoland is barely moving.

CNOC's R&V of 703 is aimed at addressing some of these shenanigans.

Mike

actions · 2012-Mar-3 8:40 am · (locked)

Forums → O Canada! → Canadian → Cogeco	« resetting voip modem? • IPv6 launch »
prev · 1 · 2
This is a sub-selection from [Burloak] Usage Based Billing Nightmare