Rogers Communications has acquired BCE’s 37.5% stake in Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment

  • PLEASE check any bookmark on all devices. IF you see a link pointing to mandatory.com DELETE it Please use this URL https://forums.hfboards.com/

rumman

Registered User
Sep 10, 2008
15,766
12,166
I guess Bell knows when to leave a party, I would gave preferred Rogers selling to Bell, but this can only be good for the organization imo. I have often said a single owner can only help even though it’s a publicly traded company, too many cooks spoil the broth and all……,
 

TheDoldrums

Registered User
May 3, 2016
12,672
19,352
Kanada
Rogers has not done a good job owning the Jays. Overall they seem more frugal than the Leafs have been recently. In past reporting over arguments between Bell and Rogers over the Leafs, the Bell side seemed more reasonable. Their TV programming is also worse than TSN and I’m guessing TSN may lose their regional games now.

Don’t think this is good news.
 

ACC1224

Super Elite, Passing ALL Tests since 2002
Aug 19, 2002
75,651
41,634
Rogers has not done a good job owning the Jays. Overall they seem more frugal than the Leafs have been recently. In past reporting over arguments between Bell and Rogers over the Leafs, the Bell side seemed more reasonable. Their TV programming is also worse than TSN and I’m guessing TSN may lose their regional games now.

Don’t think this is good news.
Jays are 7th in payroll according to this.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Anthrax442

Suntouchable13

Registered User
Dec 20, 2003
44,196
20,204
Toronto, ON
Rogers has not done a good job owning the Jays. Overall they seem more frugal than the Leafs have been recently. In past reporting over arguments between Bell and Rogers over the Leafs, the Bell side seemed more reasonable. Their TV programming is also worse than TSN and I’m guessing TSN may lose their regional games now.

Don’t think this is good news.

Wrong. Jays have spent money. That's not the issue. Rogers has not done a good job owning the Jays has nothing to do with the financial side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Forgotusername

TheDoldrums

Registered User
May 3, 2016
12,672
19,352
Kanada
Wrong. Jays have spent money. That's not the issue. Rogers has not done a good job owning the Jays has nothing to do with the financial side.

“Rogers has not done a good job owning the Jays” and “overall they seem more frugal than the Leafs have acted recently” are separate thoughts. But the Leafs have been the biggest spenders in the league on stuff outside the cap and I’m skeptical that will always be the case going forward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dekes For Days

Evilhomer

Registered User
Oct 10, 2019
4,459
4,338
This won't change much of anything. It's huge news in terms of business news though.
Correct. Won't have any impact on the on-ice product. The only real ownership change that would be impactful would be moving from a corporate to an individual owner. but that won't ever happen here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: supermann_98

SprDaVE

Moderator
Sep 20, 2008
53,671
36,673
“Rogers has not done a good job owning the Jays” and “overall they seem more frugal than the Leafs have acted recently” are separate thoughts. But the Leafs have been the biggest spenders in the league on stuff outside the cap and I’m skeptical that will always be the case going forward.

Rogers owned a 3rd of the Leafs already. The Leafs have spent max budget for 30 years. It won't change.
 

ACC1224

Super Elite, Passing ALL Tests since 2002
Aug 19, 2002
75,651
41,634
Correct. Won't have any impact on the on-ice product. The only real ownership change that would be impactful would be moving from a corporate to an individual owner. but that won't ever happen here.
Thankfully.
 

Evilhomer

Registered User
Oct 10, 2019
4,459
4,338
Thankfully.
Like everything else, it depends. Some individual owners are great, and some are not. The issue in Canada is that there are not a sufficient number of people with a sufficient amount of wealth to own significant professional sports teams. We are too small of a country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Niagara Bill

ACC1224

Super Elite, Passing ALL Tests since 2002
Aug 19, 2002
75,651
41,634
Like everything else, it depends. Some individual owners are great, and some are not. The issue in Canada is that there are not a sufficient number of people with a sufficient amount of wealth to own significant professional sports teams. We are too small of a country.
Obviously some would be good, others not but I think the odds of an individual owner becoming intrusive is greater than that of a corporate one.
Intrusive owners are rarely good.
 

TMLBlueandWhite

Registered User
Feb 2, 2023
1,784
1,880
Well there ya go folks.

Bell cared so much about winning the cup they sold their share in the team. Maybe this means they're gonna increase their stake in the Canadiens. I never could understand how it wasn't a conflict of interest them owning a piece of two teams.

Not to mention all those other teams arenas with their names on them.

I don't think this is good news. And if it isn't good news that must mean it's bad news. There's no such thing as neutral news.

Only sensationalism one way or the other.

Personally I hope they end up selling to an individual owner. Someone who is actually intetested in winning. Leaving a legacy behind fans can admire and respect him for.

Not just building a monolithic sports media monopoly empire.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Niagara Bill

Niagara Bill

Registered User
Oct 11, 2021
1,875
1,377
Still need a Stanley.
We all know that both Bell and Roger's have little interest in real winning. Money is the only game. Risk is not allowed in the board room. Shareholders views are ONLY monetary.
So if success as a Leaf fan is what you want. Buy shares.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rumman

SprDaVE

Moderator
Sep 20, 2008
53,671
36,673
Still need a Stanley.
We all know that both Bell and Roger's have little interest in real winning. Money is the only game. Risk is not allowed in the board room. Shareholders views are ONLY monetary.
So if success as a Leaf fan is what you want. Buy shares.

Let me tell you a secret. Winning = more money. Crazy, I know. It's in their interest to win.
 

Niagara Bill

Registered User
Oct 11, 2021
1,875
1,377
Obviously some would be good, others not but I think the odds of an individual owner becoming intrusive is greater than that of a corporate one.
Intrusive owners are rarely good.
Really! Tannebaum would be bad? In the end Ballard had same results as Bell.
Smythe won. Steinbrenner won, Man U won. Every NFL team is almost sole owners.
At least owners have no one else to blame and cannot hide.
 

SprDaVE

Moderator
Sep 20, 2008
53,671
36,673
Its all about risk assessment. Odds are winning are extremely low. Why put in a bunch of risk with such little chance of reward when you can remain status quo and continue to rake in the millions youre already getting.

You can call it whatever you want based on what you think they are doing. I'm just saying that they want to win and winning means more money. Achieving the goal of winning is obviously a little more complex and harder to achieve.

Rogers now owning the team won't change the idea that winning = more money and spending money is typically how you achieve that.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad