ponder719
The same New Era as before
Rogers Acquires 37.5% Maple Leaf Sports Stake From Bell for $3.5B
Rogers now owns 75% of MLSE, which is the parent company of Maple Leafs, Raptors and Toronto FC.
www.sportico.com
Rogers buys out Bell’s stake in MLSE (37.5%, US$3.5B)
- Thread starter ponder719
- Start date
www.sportico.com
How long before they start talking about Toronto 2? I mean aside from right now by us crazies. Mainly the media. How long before they do it?
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 25,161
- 12,784
I thought this would happen, before CBA was up, after reading about the 20% sale of Tanenbaum, then the wording in there.
Toronto team number 2 here we go.
Toronto team number 2 here we go.
Last edited:
Unless there is some sort of clause that covers Rogers not opposing a Toronto 2, I don't see that being a possibility. If we beleive Bell saying they did this to pay down debt they would have to spend $2 billion to get a new team.
No Fun Shogun
34-38-61-10-13-15
I get the idea of Toronto 2 opening up, but I don't see a party paying that kind of money for part of a monopoly of Southern Onatario being okay with said monopoly being broken up.
Masked
(Super/star)
With Bell keeping broadcast rights to the Leafs and Raptors, I doubt they want to get a second team. They just want to cash out while keeping their ability to show those teams on TSN.
I just don't see why Bell would sell from an established monopoly only pay a big price for a startup. Unless they were also trying to get an NBA expansion team in Montreal. But they would also have to sell their stake in the Habs to do Toronto 2 as well.
ponder719
The same New Era as before
Yeah, if anything, this makes it harder for Toronto 2, not easier. The path there, as far as I could tell, was always for Rogers and Bell to split the baby, not for Bell to just divest entirely. Now, Rogers (and Tanenbaum) are the sole opposition, and they're not giving up territorial rights without a massive payday attached.
Peasy
Registered User
Tanenbaum will be out in the next few years. Hes been trying to get out for awhile already.
LadyStanley
Registered User
ponder719
The same New Era as before
And one of the things I read suggests that Rogers has right of purchase for Tanenbaum's stake coming up in 2026, so they may end up as sole owners by then.
CDN24
Registered User
- Jun 17, 2009
- 3,685
- 3,117
His share is probably worth less today. In a potential Bell- Rogers pissing contest that share had value as it could put one of them over 50%. Now its a true minority interest with a controlling partner. I assume shareholders agreements included a valuation methodology if Bell/Rogers wanted to buy him out but certainly less value in a 3rd party sale today
it really feels like Bell/TSN is loading up to get the TV rights for the NHL in Canada
Peasy
Registered User
Yup I'll be shocked if it doesnt happen. Then Rogers can roll the Jays into the MLSE brand.
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 25,161
- 12,784
sonic92
Registered User
How long until Rogers has a bunch of layoffs to pay for all this?
Takuto Maruki
Ideal and the real
Yep. It makes sense - they have effectively everything else that matters in terms of sports, and aside from regional TV contracts that are blacked out, they have nothing in terms of winter sports that actually matters to Canadians other then the NFL. And considering that Rogers has very publicly whined about how much of an albatross the Canadian TV contract is...who else is there to pick up the pieces?
that ship sailed a long time ago. 1) what will the NHL gain? New fans? Not likely. If they are going to expand it is going to be in an untapped market. Time to have this would have been prior to WW2. When you had 2 teams in NYC, Montreal. Now? If the Mets or Yankees didnt exist, doubt MLB puts a 2nd team in the market. Same for Jets/Giants, Cubs/White Sox.
Yukon Joe
Registered User
Apple/Amazon/Netflix
Apple already has MLS rights. Amazon has picked up NHL Monday nights starting this year, plus Thursday night NFL. Netflix hasn't (that I'm aware of) gone into live sports, but it's not much of a stretch to imagine it.
varsaku
Registered User
There is definitely going to be 3-4 providers for the next NHL Canada deal. I think Amazon, Rodger & Bell are a lock considering their recent trends. Will be interesting to see if there will be more parties involved.
Takuto Maruki
Ideal and the real
I have major doubts that as much as those entities are chomping at the bit to get in on the ground floor of sports broadcasting, that the entire contract going digital would ultimately fly, especially from the feds and CRTC. Apple and MLS can get away with it considering the lower stature, and even then, Whitecaps/TFC/Impact games are still selectively rebroadcasted on TSN.
Considering that we had people, including Conservative MP's, whining about not getting OTA Oilers SCF games because CBC had prior programming in June, and had to look on Sportsnet, how much more complaints are there going to be that your typical HNIC game in January is locked out because you don't have AppleTV+ and Amazon Prime? Already get that with the Jays on Friday Night Baseball on AppleTV, and that's at max three games a year.
Yukon Joe
Registered User
So I'm not surprised in the least that BOH board immediately leaps to talking about Toronto2, but really this is the key point. That's a massive valuation.
MLSE owns a whole bunch of properties - Toronto FC, Argos, Marlies, plus BMO Field and Scotiabank Arena - but overwhelmingly the valuation is driver by owning the Leafs and Raptors. I'd love to know internally what value is being placed on each team.
So the two companies are making two different bets. Sports franchises have had absolutely massive increase in valuations over the last few years. When Rogers and Bell purchased MLSE back in 2012 it had a valuation of $1.6 Billion. Twelve years later it's now at $9.3 billion - an increase of 580%.
It seems like Bell is thinking "hey lets get out while the valuation is so high" while Rogers is thinking "sports valuations are going to stay high, or go even higher". The initial reason for Bell/Rogers to buy MLSE from OTPP was to guarantee each company would have the broadcast rights - but Bell in this deal has guaranteed themselves those rights for 20 years, plus as we've seen in the US those rights are nowhere near as lucrative as they used to be.
CokenoPepsi
Registered User
- Oct 28, 2016
- 5,218
- 2,657
Yeahhhh don't think Rogers is losing the NHL rights anytime soon, though I imagine they won't have everything next time.
Could Bell team up with someone else for a second Canadian NBA team?
Could Bell team up with someone else for a second Canadian NBA team?
Yukon Joe
Registered User
But your initial point was that it seems like Bell is going to make a big bid for NHL rights because "who else is there to pick up the pieces?". I pointed out there are several parties out there that were not a factor back when the Rogers deal was initially negotiated in 2014.
Given how Rogers has complained about how much the NHL broadcast deal has complained I think it's widely accepted that Bell was reasonably happy to NOT have gotten the deal. As such I would not be surprised if Bell doesn't come in with some massive offer for broadcast rights. Bell selling their share of MLSE is just as consistent with getting OUT of the sports business, as it is with wanting do double down on it on the broadcast side.
The media landscape is changing very quickly. Literally the only reason my family has a cable package is for live sports - and I suspect we'll give that up one day. I mean if you asked me in my 20s if I'd ever not have a home phone line I would have said you were crazy - yet we got rid of ours almost 10 years ago now.
Yes, people will always whine about sports - and the NHL does have to consider their position carefully. NHL tickets are already priced out of many people. Limiting games to a paid streaming service might maximize revenue in the short term - but at the risk of the next generation not even being exposed to the game.
Yukon Joe
Registered User
So - anything is possible, obviously. I don't know that Bell would even need to team up with anyone - they just got $3.5 billion, they have a market cap of $44 billion and are Canada's 25th largest company in terms of market value.
But really - why sell 37.5% of the Raptors in order to buy Grizzlies 2.0 (or Montreal NBA)? It's taken 25 years but the Raptors have built up a loyal nation-wide fanbase which was cemented by wining the championship in 2019. I think I'd rather have 37.5% of the Raptors than 100% of some other Canadian team.
