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

OT - Jennifer Burke No Longer a CBC Vancouver Employee

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-02-2008, 10:13 AM
  #1
24Cups
Registered User
 
24Cups's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,214
vCash: 500
OT - Jennifer Burke No Longer a CBC Vancouver Employee

I thought this was interesting news as speculation heats up again for Brian Burke to take over the reigns in Toronto. I wouldn't know Jennifer Burke if she ran me over and I'll give her credit that she is employed on her own merits and not for who her husband happens to be.

However, there is enough of a conspiracy theorist in me to wonder if the Maple Leaf and CBC tryst would collude for the 1-2 hiring of Brian and Jennifer to their respective organizations. Does anyone know if Jennifer was at CBC Vancouver prior to Brian assuming the GM position with the Canucks?

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL...44896-sun.html


Last edited by 24Cups: 06-02-2008 at 10:14 AM. Reason: added link to story
24Cups is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2008, 10:25 AM
  #2
Northern Dancer
Registered User
 
Northern Dancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,491
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 24Cups View Post
I thought this was interesting news as speculation heats up again for Brian Burke to take over the reigns in Toronto. I wouldn't know Jennifer Burke if she ran me over and I'll give her credit that she is employed on her own merits and not for who her husband happens to be.

However, there is enough of a conspiracy theorist in me to wonder if the Maple Leaf and CBC tryst would collude for the 1-2 hiring of Brian and Jennifer to their respective organizations. Does anyone know if Jennifer was at CBC Vancouver prior to Brian assuming the GM position with the Canucks?

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL...44896-sun.html
As a fellow conspiracy theorist, I would point out that Ivan Fecan is CEO of CTV and is on the board of ML$E and that CTV Globemedia is a shareholder of ML$E. The CBC connection could be a head fake!!!

Northern Dancer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2008, 10:30 AM
  #3
Judge Sauer*
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nunavut
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,989
vCash: 500
Oh noes, everyone works for the Leafs.

Judge Sauer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2008, 10:46 AM
  #4
AD
Registered User
 
AD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bigassofficetower
Country: Lebanon
Posts: 14,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Dancer View Post
As a fellow conspiracy theorist, I would point out that Ivan Fecan is CEO of CTV and is on the board of ML$E and that CTV Globemedia is a shareholder of ML$E. The CBC connection could be a head fake!!!
(Warning - More conspiracy theories)

Also.. The OTPB (owner of MLSE) is set to buy out BCE - BELL and therefore, Bell Globemedia (who I believe is part owner of CTV) ...

AD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2008, 10:46 AM
  #5
David_99
Registered User
 
David_99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Moncton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judge Sauer View Post
Oh noes, everyone works for the Leafs.
I heard Timmins picked Corey Urquart in the 2003 draft because his 2nd cousin was a camera man for CTV. 20 Good picks / 1 bad pick. He will slowly draft random busts over the next decade until the Habs are sworming with 3 bad prospects. Winner: Leafs.

David_99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2008, 10:54 AM
  #6
sandman08
Registered User
 
sandman08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hyderabad, India
Country: India
Posts: 2,382
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AD View Post
(Warning - More conspiracy theories)

Also.. The OTPB (owner of MLSE) is set to buy out BCE - BELL and therefore, Bell Globemedia (who I believe is part owner of CTV) ...
i thought the financing fell through on that or did they resurrect the deal?

BGM is only partially owned by BCE (something like 20% but OTPB also owns 20%) but is a part owner of CTV as you mentioned.

sandman08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2008, 11:54 AM
  #7
Astaroth
Registered User
 
Astaroth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Montreal,Qc
Posts: 1,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman08 View Post
i thought the financing fell through on that or did they resurrect the deal?

BGM is only partially owned by BCE (something like 20% but OTPB also owns 20%) but is a part owner of CTV as you mentioned.
The quebec court of appeal squashed it by saying that the directors/board did not take into consideration the financial impact on debenture holders and then going to say that peoples and revlon duties were incompatible and basically opening a cluster**** as what regime actually applies in quebec securities/governance.

It'll be heard by the supreme court for sure though so the deal isn't dead. If common sense prevails (no guarantee with the CSC), load up on BCE shares because the deal will prevail.


Last edited by Astaroth: 06-02-2008 at 12:18 PM. Reason: Too much rambling
Astaroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2008, 01:19 PM
  #8
AD
Registered User
 
AD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bigassofficetower
Country: Lebanon
Posts: 14,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astaroth View Post
The quebec court of appeal squashed it by saying that the directors/board did not take into consideration the financial impact on debenture holders and then going to say that peoples and revlon duties were incompatible and basically opening a cluster**** as what regime actually applies in quebec securities/governance.

It'll be heard by the supreme court for sure though so the deal isn't dead. If common sense prevails (no guarantee with the CSC), load up on BCE shares because the deal will prevail.
What do you mean "common sense" prevails...


if the board and their advisors had 2 minutes to take their heads out of their ***** and had attempted to do their job, they might not have created this cluster**** in the first place.

Michael Sabia

AD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2008, 01:41 PM
  #9
Northern Dancer
Registered User
 
Northern Dancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,491
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AD View Post
What do you mean "common sense" prevails...


if the board and their advisors had 2 minutes to take their heads out of their ***** and had attempted to do their job, they might not have created this cluster**** in the first place.

Michael Sabia
Even of the Supreme Court shoots down the appeal ruling I don't think there is a snowballs chance in hell the deal goes through as the financing is on very shaky ground. The deal will most definately be re-priced.

Northern Dancer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2008, 01:54 PM
  #10
Gros Bill
Registered User
 
Gros Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Country: Rwanda
Posts: 5,903
vCash: 500
I really like these Maple Leafs threads.

Gros Bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2008, 01:56 PM
  #11
Astaroth
Registered User
 
Astaroth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Montreal,Qc
Posts: 1,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AD View Post
What do you mean "common sense" prevails...


if the board and their advisors had 2 minutes to take their heads out of their ***** and had attempted to do their job, they might not have created this cluster**** in the first place.

Michael Sabia
I'm not saying the board are angels, but the cluster**** starts with that ideological drivel that was Peoples.

And like that judgement, the QC court of appeal's reasoning is hardly in line with the practical realities of securities in Qc/Can. IMO They managed to quote two whole pages of Rousseau out of context to underwrite their position.

I should rephrase what I said, actually. There needs to be a balance between director's discretion and shareholder's choice, no one can argue that. But that balance is hardly struck with Peoples, and the Qc court of appeal's judgement is a great disservice to efforts attempting to strive for that balance. Just like SOX was a disservice to corporate governance.

What I am trying to say that, the courts have made this more than just about BCE, the transaction. I am not necessarily agreeing with the treatment of the debentureholders but their protection should not come at the expense of ''common sense'', as in the accepted protocols of securities practises. Well now you know why I edited my initial post for too much rambling, because this hasn't even covered even a fraction of what I feel about the issue.

Astaroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2008, 02:20 PM
  #12
AD
Registered User
 
AD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bigassofficetower
Country: Lebanon
Posts: 14,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astaroth View Post
I'm not saying the board are angels, but the cluster**** starts with that ideological drivel that was Peoples.

And like that judgement, the QC court of appeal's reasoning is hardly in line with the practical realities of securities in Qc/Can. IMO They managed to quote two whole pages of Rousseau out of context to underwrite their position.

I should rephrase what I said, actually. There needs to be a balance between director's discretion and shareholder's choice, no one can argue that. But that balance is hardly struck with Peoples, and the Qc court of appeal's judgement is a great disservice to efforts attempting to strive for that balance. Just like SOX was a disservice to corporate governance.

What I am trying to say that, the courts have made this more than just about BCE, the transaction. I am not necessarily agreeing with the treatment of the debentureholders but their protection should not come at the expense of ''common sense'', as in the accepted protocols of securities practises. Well now you know why I edited my initial post for too much rambling, because this hasn't even covered even a fraction of what I feel about the issue.
Ideological drivel?

Directors have it too easy with Revlon-type duties..

A- The company is in normal circumstances with no events on the horizon: do nothing

B- The company is in play and there might be change of control: Screw th company in an attempt to maximize shareholder value

C- The company is near insolvency: Screw the shareholders, screw the comoany, focus on the creditors.



Well if its just a matter of only focusing on one group at a time... might as well hire a commodore-64 computer to run the company. "In case of insolvency, press C, in case of Buy-out, press B"..

What if everybody had it that easy? (In case of war, government shuts down education, healthcare, roads, etc to focus on one overriding objective...!!)

Boards


Someone has to be fighting for the corporation independantly from the corporate interests of its stakeholders.

And in my book, any law or court decision that maintains healthy corporate governance (see Peoples) is better in the long run for the securities market.

AD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2008, 02:55 PM
  #13
Astaroth
Registered User
 
Astaroth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Montreal,Qc
Posts: 1,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AD View Post
Ideological drivel?

Directors have it too easy with Revlon-type duties..

A- The company is in normal circumstances with no events on the horizon: do nothing

B- The company is in play and there might be change of control: Screw th company in an attempt to maximize shareholder value

C- The company is near insolvency: Screw the shareholders, screw the comoany, focus on the creditors.



Well if its just a matter of only focusing on one group at a time... might as well hire a commodore-64 computer to run the company. "In case of insolvency, press C, in case of Buy-out, press B"..

What if everybody had it that easy? (In case of war, government shuts down education, healthcare, roads, etc to focus on one overriding objective...!!)

Boards


Someone has to be fighting for the corporation independantly from the corporate interests of its stakeholders.

And in my book, any law or court decision that maintains healthy corporate governance (see Peoples) is better in the long run for the securities market.
Revlon duties isn't about making director's lives easier. It's about protecting shareholders because they have only two real recourses (without counting the recours des actionnaires minoritaires in qc); sell or depose the C.A. It makes perfect sense that when a company is in play, the board should be preoccupied with the priority of maximizing shareholder value. The shareholders have no other guarantees. The other stakeholders have other protections (contracts, labour law, civil liability/responsibility for creditors, employees and the community/environment). Now should it be pure revlon duties? I don't think so, and delaware law has evolved since that circa 1985 judgement. Not perfect, and certainly not perfectly transposing to the canadian reality of securities. But it has proven to be fairly efficient.

As for your ABCs, they are relatively true. But the hodgepodge that Peoples has proposed is ridiculously impossible to apply on a practical level.

Okay you want to include all stakeholders in the consideration of the decision. What's the order? Who is more important than who? What is the proper balance between the question I posed before between director's discretion and shareholder's choice in takeover bid situations?

Also it should be stated that this flies completely against the face of the policies of the Canadian Securities Administrators. And in the BCE case, this wasn't a regular takeover bid, it was done through a statutory arrangement, that was determined to be fair and reasonable for all parties involved by a court.

I'm not against the ideology of Peoples but you don't blow up an established working framework and not set out a comprehensive guideline after. All you're doing is creating uncertainty amongst everyone, and that doesn't help.

And I'm too young to remember what an N-64 commodore was

Astaroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2008, 10:12 AM
  #14
AD
Registered User
 
AD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bigassofficetower
Country: Lebanon
Posts: 14,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astaroth View Post
Okay you want to include all stakeholders in the consideration of the decision. What's the order? Who is more important than who? What is the proper balance between the question I posed before between director's discretion and shareholder's choice in takeover bid situations?

I'm not against the ideology of Peoples but you don't blow up an established working framework and not set out a comprehensive guideline after. All you're doing is creating uncertainty amongst everyone, and that doesn't help.
Fair enough. But let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.

I'm all for clarifying Peoples and setting up some boundaries. But the concept of "balancing interests at all times in the best overall interest of the corporation" is good law. Its better than having the board focus on one interest at a time and treat is as an "overriding objective" and then use that focus as a shield against the claims of prejudiced stakeholders.

So I guess we agree. So who do we talk to at the Supreme court about this?

AD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2008, 10:19 AM
  #15
SOLR
Registered User
 
SOLR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Toronto / North York
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AD View Post
What do you mean "common sense" prevails...


if the board and their advisors had 2 minutes to take their heads out of their ***** and had attempted to do their job, they might not have created this cluster**** in the first place.

Michael Sabia
I still remember the front page of Le Journal Les Affaires, with Sabia on the front page, titled: "A new star is born", while saying to myself, "yeah right LOL".

SOLR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2008, 08:25 PM
  #16
JrHockeyFan
Registered User
 
JrHockeyFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,520
vCash: 500
So she quit her job in Vancouver. Hmmmm

It can only mean one thing. She is probably looking for another job. There is an opening as Leafs coach!

JrHockeyFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2008, 08:39 PM
  #17
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 13,102
vCash: 500
On a related front, Brian Burke's family dog has just returned from the vet, initial reports are in, this was just a checkup before heading to TO for a dogshow...

BLONG7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 10:32 AM
  #18
Astaroth
Registered User
 
Astaroth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Montreal,Qc
Posts: 1,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AD View Post
Fair enough. But let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.

I'm all for clarifying Peoples and setting up some boundaries. But the concept of "balancing interests at all times in the best overall interest of the corporation" is good law. Its better than having the board focus on one interest at a time and treat is as an "overriding objective" and then use that focus as a shield against the claims of prejudiced stakeholders.

So I guess we agree. So who do we talk to at the Supreme court about this?
Good concept, practical application... they'll practically need to write a 8500 pages rulebook like the FSA.

Haha I'm hoping that the supreme court gets an amicus curiae for this one, considering that it's a pretty technical and specialized matter. Condon or Rousseau would be nice.

Astaroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2008, 10:35 AM
  #19
Kimota
Three Bananas
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 22,500
vCash: 500
In another news, Jennifer Burke is hired by CBC Toronto.

Kimota 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 08:39 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.