dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
14
share rss forum feed


HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to Wolfie00

Re: [Hockey] Official 2013 Toronto Maple Leafs Thread

said by Wolfie00:

I tend to agree with that as well. The teachers were a problem because a faceless retired teachers' pension fund is not exactly the epitome of passionate sports enthusiasm, and I never thought it could possibly get worse than that. But Rogers+Bell are kind of like the two Princes of Hell -- they are actively evil.

Yeah, and like Bob McCown said today on PTS, that sooner or later Bell & Rogers will clash over certain things, especially broadcasting rights, and one will likely try to buy out the other.
--
F**K THE NHL. Go Blue Jays 2013!!!


Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:8
The irony here is that a major attribute that Rogers and Bell have in common is utter contempt for the customer, an attribute that MLSE already had for years before either of them had a major ownership stake. It's now kind of one big evil family, rife with exactly the kind of bureaucratic incompetence we've all learned to endure when calling customer service at either of those douchebag monopolies. I wonder what this says about how Leafs fans are going to be treated going forward?
--
"The promoters of the global economy see nothing odd or difficult about unlimited economic growth or unlimited consumption in a limited world."
Wendell Berry


Kardinal
Dei Gratia Regina
Premium,Mod
join:2001-02-04
N of 49th
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·Bell Sympatico
reply to HiVolt
said by HiVolt:

Yeah, and like Bob McCown said today on PTS, that sooner or later Bell & Rogers will clash over certain things, especially broadcasting rights, and one will likely try to buy out the other.

If that happens, it's going to be an interesting power struggle to watch. Bell will never let Rogers assume control of MLSE as that would give them ownership of 3/4 of the major sports in Toronto (Jays/Leafs/Toronto FC), and I can't see Rogers letting Bell take over something with as much content and public exposure as MLSE.
--
All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer by the stars
All of us do time in the gutter, dreamers turn to look at the cars

- Peart / Lifeson / Lee
Join Team Helix


HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·TekSavvy Cable
said by Kardinal:

If that happens, it's going to be an interesting power struggle to watch. Bell will never let Rogers assume control of MLSE as that would give them ownership of 3/4 of the major sports in Toronto (Jays/Leafs/Toronto FC), and I can't see Rogers letting Bell take over something with as much content and public exposure as MLSE.

Don't forget the Raptors, who are under MLSE.

IMO this unholy alliance should have never formed, at least not in equal shares. I was fine if Rogers owned the majority of MLSE, and Bell stuck to their Habs investment and whatever other sports they can be into in the Quebec area.

Rogers has owned the Blue Jays for what 10 years now? They've never been accused of meddling in the day to day affairs.

And now it appears like Bell is meddling right away.
--
F**K THE NHL. Go Blue Jays 2013!!!


Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:8
reply to Kardinal
Rogers and Bell set up an interesting arrangement that prevents either one from potentially conspiring with Tannenbaum to outvote the other, namely that their combined 75% stake is controlled by a single holding company in which each one has 50% ownership. Doesn't change anything you said, just an interesting sidelight. It means that any battle for control is removed from MLSE and is internal between Rogers and BCE. Whoever might get control of the holding company becomes the de facto owner of MLSE.


Kardinal
Dei Gratia Regina
Premium,Mod
join:2001-02-04
N of 49th
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·Bell Sympatico
reply to HiVolt
said by HiVolt:

And now it appears like Bell is meddling right away.

As far as I've heard, that's just an opinion / rumour in the middle of a lot of other ones about the Burke firing. I haven't seen a single piece of real evidence that would in any way support the theory.
--
All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer by the stars
All of us do time in the gutter, dreamers turn to look at the cars

- Peart / Lifeson / Lee
Join Team Helix


HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·TekSavvy Cable
said by Kardinal:

As far as I've heard, that's just an opinion / rumour in the middle of a lot of other ones about the Burke firing. I haven't seen a single piece of real evidence that would in any way support the theory.

Well, its certainly a plausible scenario, given the fact that Rogers has no history of meddling in the Blue Jays affairs, and I doubt Larry Tanenbaum wanted Burke fired... So it leaves Bell as a possible and likely aggressor.
--
F**K THE NHL. Go Blue Jays 2013!!!