HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Potential MLSE deal with Bell and Rogers and implications for the Habs

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-09-2011, 10:00 AM
  #26
Seb
Unregistered User
 
Seb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: England
Posts: 7,367
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Seb
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mandala View Post
According to the press conference Bell will have 37.5% ownership.

"Each company will receive 37.5 per cent of MLSE, with the remaining portion being picked up by minority stakeholder Kilmer Sports". Kilmer Sports share will increase to around 25%
This doesn't really make sense. They can't own more than 30% of the team AND own parts of another.

Seb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2011, 10:01 AM
  #27
HH
GO HABS GO!
 
HH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,302
vCash: 500
Conflicting reports. Unless the NHL approved Bell to keep the Habs.

HH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2011, 10:04 AM
  #28
Seb
Unregistered User
 
Seb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: England
Posts: 7,367
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Seb
Ok here's what I got. it's a bit tricky :

They invested in 28% of the deal, but they also invested 9,5% in some sort of independant co-investment (that part i'm not too familiar with).

What it means is, they sort of invested twice on that deal to keep them under the 30% ownership so they can keep their parts on the habs.

I'll try to be clearer when we get all the details.

Seb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2011, 10:11 AM
  #29
Mandala
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 132
vCash: 500
@Seb



Any link? The only official articles I have found mention 37.5% MLSE share for Bell.

And no official word from the NHL at this point.

Mandala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2011, 10:12 AM
  #30
HH
GO HABS GO!
 
HH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seb View Post
Ok here's what I got. it's a bit tricky :

They invested in 28% of the deal, but they also invested 9,5% in some sort of independant co-investment (that part i'm not too familiar with).

What it means is, they sort of invested twice on that deal to keep them under the 30% ownership so they can keep their parts on the habs.

I'll try to be clearer when we get all the details.
Bell declined in the early part of the millennium but now they are like **** YOU ALL. WE OWN YOU.

HH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2011, 10:16 AM
  #31
Habs
Registered User
 
Habs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,461
vCash: 500
Wow, I wish these teams could revert to private ownership again, can't stand all this corporate ownership.

Habs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2011, 10:17 AM
  #32
habsrock60
Registered User
 
habsrock60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 677
vCash: 500
The Bell representative from the press conference just said that they will own 37.5% of the Leafs and that they will work with the NHL to retain the 18% they have in the habs

habsrock60 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2011, 10:18 AM
  #33
Natural Habs Fan
Registered User
 
Natural Habs Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,022
vCash: 500
Maybe they should charge less for their services since they have all this extra cash to throw around. Prices for phone, internet and tv services are crazy.

Natural Habs Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2011, 10:20 AM
  #34
Seb
Unregistered User
 
Seb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: England
Posts: 7,367
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Seb
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mandala View Post
@Seb



Any link? The only official articles I have found mention 37.5% MLSE share for Bell.

And no official word from the NHL at this point.
http://www.radio-canada.ca/sports/Pl...vendredi.shtml

Quote:
La contribution financière nette de BCE à MLSE, suivant la recapitalisation prévue de MLSE, est de 398 millions, soit 28 %. Et elle sera financée au moyen de fonds propres à la clôture de la transaction.

Le Fonds Unitaire BCE, une fiducie indépendante de BCE qui détient et gère les placements de la caisse de retraite des participants au Régime de retraite collectif de BCE, a aussi une entente de coinvestissement avec Bell. Il versera 135 millions pour l'acquisition de MLSE.

Ensemble, BCE et le Fonds unitaire BCE ont une participation de 37,5 % dans le nouveau MLSE. Ils ont le même poids que Rogers Communications, aussi à 37,5 %.

Seb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2011, 10:23 AM
  #35
Gary320
Moderator
 
Gary320's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 13,924
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsrock60 View Post
The Bell representative from the press conference just said that they will own 37.5% of the Leafs and that they will work with the NHL to retain the 18% they have in the habs
Bell owns 37.5% but 28.8 is actually own by Bell, the other percent is owned by the Bell Pension Fund and it is a non-controlling share. This sets in place that they can still own both Habs/Leafs.

What I wonder is, how many years left of the least for the rights to name the Toronto arena the Air Canada Center? Air Canada has no shares in the team or the arena as far as I know, they just bought the rights to naming the arena. Once that is up, I bet it gets renamed Rogers Arena or Bell Arena.

Gary320 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2011, 10:25 AM
  #36
Seb
Unregistered User
 
Seb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: England
Posts: 7,367
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Seb
And this, my friends, is how companies circumvent rules to get what they want.

Seb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2011, 10:25 AM
  #37
Jack Bourdain
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Jack Bourdain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montréal, QC.
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,163
vCash: 500
Telecomm's own our telecommunications network, our favorite TV channels, own the sports teams, owns pretty much everything...

How did we get to this point...

Jack Bourdain is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2011, 10:29 AM
  #38
Gary320
Moderator
 
Gary320's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 13,924
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Bourdain View Post
Telecomm's own our telecommunications network, our favorite TV channels, own the sports teams, owns pretty much everything...

How did we get to this point...
It's the AMERICANS!!! No really I dont know..

Gary320 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2011, 10:33 AM
  #39
Seb
Unregistered User
 
Seb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: England
Posts: 7,367
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Seb
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Bourdain View Post
Telecomm's own our telecommunications network, our favorite TV channels, own the sports teams, owns pretty much everything...

How did we get to this point...
Because it's mostly political/financial debates and most people (sadly) don't care about those things.

The bill 204 for Quebec's arena is a recent exemple of how the majority people couldn't care less about what's going on behind the deals.

Seb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2011, 10:39 AM
  #40
Habs
Registered User
 
Habs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,461
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Bourdain View Post
Telecomm's own our telecommunications network, our favorite TV channels, own the sports teams, owns pretty much everything...

How did we get to this point...
For some reason , the average person agreed with the corporations, they needed 4 phones in their lives, and 300 useless tv channels at home.

Habs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2011, 10:46 AM
  #41
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,964
vCash: 500
When all else fails, blame the U.S and Bush.

Andy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2011, 10:47 AM
  #42
Andy
Registered User
 
Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs View Post
For some reason , the average person agreed with the corporations, they needed 4 phones in their lives, and 300 useless tv channels at home.
If we're going to talk about useless, somehow a hockey team convinced god knows how many people to take 3 hours out of their days, 3-4 days a week to sit and watch people play a sport. I'm pretty sure we can all find something more useful to do in the 9-12 hours a week we waste watching hockey(not to mention the hours wasted on this board).

It's life, it's entertainment and it's luxury.

Andy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2011, 10:49 AM
  #43
Gary320
Moderator
 
Gary320's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 13,924
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
If we're going to talk about useless, somehow a hockey team convinced god knows how many people to take 3 hours out of their days, 3-4 days a week to sit and watch people play a sport. I'm pretty sure we can all find something more useful to do in the 9-12 hours a week we waste watching hockey(not to mention the hours wasted on this board).

It's life, it's entertainment and it's luxury.
not to add the amount of time *****ing or rejoicing about the results afterwards either.

Sometimes, things aren't always that bad.

Gary320 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2011, 10:53 AM
  #44
Boris Le Tigre
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
 
Boris Le Tigre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: More Toast !
Country: Vatican City State
Posts: 5,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs View Post
Wow, I wish these teams could revert to private ownership again, can't stand all this corporate ownership.
Synergies the capitalists call it.

Not to be confused with monopoly.

Boris Le Tigre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2011, 11:07 AM
  #45
HH
GO HABS GO!
 
HH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,302
vCash: 500
So Bell can trade Gomez to the Leafs? Right? RIGHT?

HH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2011, 11:40 AM
  #46
MooseOllini
BobBarker
 
MooseOllini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Portugal
Posts: 4,013
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryI View Post
So Bell can trade Gomez to the Leafs? Right? RIGHT?
Maybe, but they'll rather do this. More profitable



Pacioretty
Price
Subban
Emelin
Eller
Beaulieu
1st 2012,2013,2014,2015



Komisarek
Crabb
Tucker
conditional 5th in 2042


@ least I'll get to wear my komisarek t-shirt again! oh wait... I burnt it..

MooseOllini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2011, 11:43 AM
  #47
habs03
Subban #Thoroughbred
 
habs03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 4,764
vCash: 500
Well I knew Bell invested with Molson to help him by the Habs but didn't know actually had an official investment.

I thought Molson the Company owned 20%, and Molson (Family) bought the 80% with some funding from Bell to keep Quebecor from buying them.

Does anyone know who offically owns the Habs, like the breakdown.

habs03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2011, 10:28 AM
  #48
Mandala
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 132
vCash: 500
I am now waiting to see what the NHL thinks of that little trick... Will they allow it?

Mandala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2011, 12:49 PM
  #49
JGRB
#EllerThugLife
 
JGRB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,933
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary320 View Post
Bell owns 37.5% but 28.8 is actually own by Bell, the other percent is owned by the Bell Pension Fund and it is a non-controlling share. This sets in place that they can still own both Habs/Leafs.

What I wonder is, how many years left of the least for the rights to name the Toronto arena the Air Canada Center? Air Canada has no shares in the team or the arena as far as I know, they just bought the rights to naming the arena. Once that is up, I bet it gets renamed Rogers Arena or Bell Arena.
I'd have no issue with our arena being renamed the Molson Center, or some sort of variation on the Forum.

JGRB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2011, 10:35 PM
  #50
Mandala
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 132
vCash: 500
According to this article:

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/12/09...-of-leafs-habs


"BCE will have to make a presentation before the NHL’s Board seeking approval for its dual ownership. That presentation isn’t likely to occur until the summer of 2012, once the purchase of MLSE becomes official.

The Board, at that time, would in turn ask for appropriate safeguards to ensure that BCE had no operating influence in two different franchises. That is the key to the issue. BCE might be allowed to maintain ownership in two franchises, but could not in any way be considered operating two franchises. The Board would then vote, approving BCE’s ability to own shares in two franchises, or force BCE to divest itself of the shares in the Canadiens."

In other words, nothing will happen from the NHL until the summer of 2012. I guess that explains the silence of Bettman and Daly on this issue.

Mandala is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:41 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.