 KardinalDei Gratia ReginaPremium
join:2001-02-04
N of 49th | reply to HiVolt
Re: [Hockey] Official 2013 Toronto Maple Leafs Thread 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 |
|
 HiVoltPremium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:17
 ·TekSavvy Cable
 ·TekSavvy DSL
| 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!!!
|
|
 Wolfie00My dog is an elitistPremium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:5 | 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. |
|
KardinalDei Gratia ReginaPremium
join:2001-02-04
N of 49th | 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 |
|
HiVoltPremium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:17 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
| 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!!!
|
|
