Raptors Forum | Toronto Raptors Forums & Message Boards

Raptors Forum | Toronto Raptors Forums & Message Boards (http://www.raptorsforum.com/f/)
-   Toronto Raptors (http://www.raptorsforum.com/f/f5/)
-   -   Forbes: Bell or Rogers to buy MLSE for 2.25Bil (http://www.raptorsforum.com/f/f5/forbes-bell-rogers-buy-mlse-2-25bil-20217.html)

jeffb 05-13-2011 01:10 PM

Forbes: Bell or Rogers to buy MLSE for 2.25Bil
 
Quote:

A Canadian-based sports banker familiar with the discussions on the sale of Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment by the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Fund says it is highly likely that either Bell Canada Enterprises or Rogers Communications will eventually pay $2.25 billion for MLS&E. This person spoke on the condition of because of anonymity because they are not authorized to disclose information on the talks.
Maple Leaf Sports And Entertainment Will Fetch $2.25 Billion: Sports Banker - Mike Ozanian - SportsMoney - Forbes

fk24 05-13-2011 01:14 PM

This is practically the worst thing that can happen. An even bigger corporate ownership.

Acie 05-13-2011 01:35 PM

Rogers will want ratings and winning teams get good ratings...

Might not be such a bad thing.

jeffb 05-13-2011 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acie (Post 538468)
Rogers will want ratings and winning teams get good ratings...

Might not be such a bad thing.

I will say this, pretty much anything is probably better then what we currently have. Certainly can't get worse, no?

fancylad 05-13-2011 01:51 PM

I am not opposed to corporate ownership. Just as long as it's ownership sake for the right reasons. The bottom line is making money, and most any team depends on winning to increase their income. This is most certainly the case with the Raptors and tronoto FC. the Maple leafs are pretty much the exception to the rule. so as long as the new owner is serious about winning, i would have no problem with that.

The only issue i have is so many teams potentially being owned by one corporation (especially if it ends up being rogers). That doesn't sit well with me for sure.

MikeToronto 05-13-2011 01:53 PM

The best possible ownership situation, obviously, is a very wealthy individual, like Cuban or Allen, who is passionate about the sport and winning. But a rich communications giant, either Bell or Rogers, would still be much better than a pension fund - a pure bottom-line-oriented owners.

As far as I remember, Larry Tanenbaum still has the right of first refusal to buy the outstanding shares of MLSE should they become available. I wonder if he is looking to team up with some other individuals and take over the organization, 'cause that would have been the best possible outcome for the teams and their fans.

jeffb 05-13-2011 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fancylad (Post 538472)
I am not opposed to corporate ownership. Just as long as it's ownership sake for the right reasons. The bottom line is making money, and most any team depends on winning to increase their income. This is most certainly the case with the Raptors and tronoto FC. the Maple leafs are pretty much the exception to the rule. so as long as the new owner is serious about winning, i would have no problem with that.

The only issue i have is so many teams potentially being owned by one corporation (especially if it ends up being rogers). That doesn't sit well with me for sure.

Maple Leafs are an acception, but if they're winning it means more money as well. It applies to all teams, less for the Leafs sure but let's face it the Leafs make less money if they're not winning, plus i heard a while back that their box sales and even tickets are softer in the last couple years. Marginally of course, but winning has to apply to them as well even if less so then the other two teams.

jeffb 05-13-2011 01:59 PM

What would be better,one corporate owner for all three teams or all three teams being sold seperately? Or say One owner for the Leafs and one owner for the Raps/FC? Is that even a possibility, considering the Leafs/Raps play in the same building? For instance, a Jim ballsilie type buys the Leafs,a Cuban type buys the Raps and maybe FC as well? Basically, seperate guys that have a large interest in that sport.

MikeToronto 05-13-2011 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffb (Post 538477)
What would be better,one corporate owner for all three teams or all three teams being sold seperately? Or say One owner for the Leafs and one owner for the Raps/FC? Is that even a possibility, considering the Leafs/Raps play in the same building? For instance, a Jim ballsilie type buys the Leafs,a Cuban type buys the Raps and maybe FC as well? Basically, seperate guys that have a large interest in that sport.

It makes a lot of sense for the same entity to own Leafs, Raps and the ACC. The rest of the assets are independent enough.

jeffb 05-13-2011 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeToronto (Post 538478)
It makes a lot of sense for the same entity to own Leafs, Raps and the ACC. The rest of the assets are independent enough.

The only problem with that imo, is will they have a vast interest in all three enitities beyond profit? I mean, winning = profit of course, but MLSE was in it for profit and nobody won shit.

Claudius 05-13-2011 02:26 PM

At the end of the day, Bell and Rogers have much to lose because their name will be tied to the hockey team (like it or not) and if it's evidenced that they're not willing to be competitive, then it could hit them in the pocket book pretty hard as their brand will be associated with being a loser.

My worry in any sale, is where do the 'smaller' enterprises stand (i.e. TFC and the Raptors?) Will they be forgotten about?

Also, a part of me wants to see Bell Canada win out here, simply because I despise Rogers.

Lastly, it wouldn't surprise me that whomever purchases this enterprise, I could, possibly envision the next purchase being an EPL team. Money to be made there, especially in Canada and considering they're all broadcasters, potential to control soccer rights as well.

jeffb 05-13-2011 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claudius (Post 538487)
At the end of the day, Bell and Rogers have much to lose because their name will be tied to the hockey team (like it or not) and if it's evidenced that they're not willing to be competitive, then it could hit them in the pocket book pretty hard as their brand will be associated with being a loser.

My worry in any sale, is where do the 'smaller' enterprises stand (i.e. TFC and the Raptors?) Will they be forgotten about?

Also, a part of me wants to see Bell Canada win out here, simply because I despise Rogers.

Lastly, it wouldn't surprise me that whomever purchases this enterprise, I could, possibly envision the next purchase being an EPL team. Money to be made there, especially in Canada and considering they're all broadcasters, potential to control soccer rights as well.


The Raptors as a non playoff team makes 25-30Mil/yr, i can't see them ignoring that altogether. They were talking the other day on the radio about MLSE makes 100Mil a year roughly, 50Mil by the Leafs, 25Mil by the Raptors and the rest is everything else ...ie; Condos, FC etc.... IMO there is more room to maximize profits with the Raps/FC since the Leafs will make a lot of money no matter what. But ultimately it's in their best interest to have all three teams winning and making the playoffs.

DanH 05-13-2011 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claudius (Post 538487)
At the end of the day, Bell and Rogers have much to lose because their name will be tied to the hockey team (like it or not) and if it's evidenced that they're not willing to be competitive, then it could hit them in the pocket book pretty hard as their brand will be associated with being a loser.

My worry in any sale, is where do the 'smaller' enterprises stand (i.e. TFC and the Raptors?) Will they be forgotten about?

Also, a part of me wants to see Bell Canada win out here, simply because I despise Rogers.

Lastly, it wouldn't surprise me that whomever purchases this enterprise, I could, possibly envision the next purchase being an EPL team. Money to be made there, especially in Canada and considering they're all broadcasters, potential to control soccer rights as well.

I used to despise Rogers. I did. Then I switched to Bell. Now I despise them both.

As for this sale - whoever wins this sale (of the two) will be able to corner the market on showing the games on their own channels, and thereby increase how much they charge other carriers for those channels.

The best part about this is, as Acie said above, the incentive to win. With an ownership like the OTPP, a winning team increases the profits by improving gate sales, playoff revenues, jersey sales, etc, versus the cost of paying for more talent, better coaching, etc.

With a communications owner, a winning team has the same cost, but also improves profits based on all of the above, PLUS increased viewership on their exclusive channels. This may tilt the scales in the fans' favour, in terms of the owners' willingness to spend.

b55bgc 05-13-2011 03:08 PM

Love this.
Maybe Bosh will come back. PLease. And they can have Barney.

BballWatcher 05-13-2011 03:13 PM

It would be awful if Rogers buys MLSE because Rogers sucks.

It would be awful if Bell buys MLSE because Bell sucks.

Both companies have utter contempt for their customers, fuck around with pricing to no end (you negotiate a better price with them, then it slowly creeps back up with added fees, etc).

What sucks is that there would very likely be "exclusive" MLSE content to either Rogers or Bell customers - whichever wins out. The other possibility is a higher cost to things like Raptors TV if you're a customer of the competitor.

--------

As annoying as it is that some dickhead at the teacher's pension fund is holding up Colangelo's contract (and thus the future of the Raptors), I would forsee lots of problems if either of these giants bought MLSE.

komot 05-13-2011 03:13 PM

rogers has done a great job with the jays, wouldn't mind them as the owners of MLSE. bell on the other hand..

BballWatcher 05-13-2011 03:13 PM

It would be awful if Rogers buys MLSE because Rogers sucks.

It would be awful if Bell buys MLSE because Bell sucks, possibly more than Rogers IMO.

Both companies have utter contempt for their customers, fuck around with pricing to no end (you negotiate a better price with them, then it slowly creeps back up with added fees, etc).

What sucks is that there would very likely be "exclusive" MLSE content to either Rogers or Bell customers - whichever wins out. The other possibility is a higher cost to things like Raptors TV if you're a customer of the competitor.

--------

As annoying as it is that some dickhead at the teacher's pension fund is holding up Colangelo's contract (and thus the future of the Raptors), I would forsee lots of problems if either of these giants bought MLSE.

moremilk 05-13-2011 04:12 PM

there is no rich individual paying 2.25 billion just to acquire a toy
that's a ton of money for even the richest people in the world.

portland and dallas are much cheaper teams, to put this in perspective, they probably went for 300M when they were acquired, and say cuban lost 20M a year ever since. That comes out to about 500M, which means he probably breaks even if he wants to sell.

when paying 2.25 for MLSE, you do it because it's cash cow. If you turn that cash cow into a losing enterprise, not only you lose money from operations, you also lose (much more) when the MLSE drops in value. If MLSE was to drop to 900M or so (which would be the average cost of a NBA + NHL + MLS franchise set), that's a 1.35 billion loss :)

So, ultimately, the only thing that could make us into a dallas/portland type of franchise would be for somebody rich to buy just the raptors. And that would never happen.

Still, by having the team owned by a big local corporation, at least you know the team isn't going anywhere which is more than I can say about a few unlucky current nba cities today ...

jeffb 05-13-2011 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by komot (Post 538509)
rogers has done a great job with the jays, wouldn't mind them as the owners of MLSE. bell on the other hand..

How so? The only good thing they did was finally fire JP and replace him with AA. It's not as if they're spending money..

LX 05-13-2011 04:25 PM

If this were not to happen, I'd be losing interest in this team pretty quickly. This team needs change at the very top. I don't like either Rogers or Bell, but they both have a license to print money (or take it out of my pocket anyway), and both would benefit from winning and so would have that as a profit motive. My only concern would be the same as what Claudius described - placing most of their attention with the hockey operations. But it would seem to be bad business practices for that to happen. So just make it happen already. It is great fucking news.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright RaptorsForum.com 2005-2011


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24