The Star: The Maple Leafs were the only team not to vote for the Rogers/NHL deal

[The Legend]

Some off the ice news. For those of you who predicted issues with the Rogers/Bell partnership to own MLSE, here's the first (public) straw:

Link

Click to read more...

 

[blue82]

i had a conspiracy theory that the league suddenly decided to call a bunch of stupid penalties on the leafs and not call the same penalties on the other team right after this agreement was announced starting imediately with the game in pittsburgh, yeah im sure what i think is not true (well i hope not) but this article certainly does not help alleviate my thoughts LOL

 

[Dayjobdave]

It's kind of an 'of course' non vote.

MLSE has two masters. they can't serve one over the other in a vote, and their vote means nothing to the end result.

I don't lend any credence to the vote causing the obvious ref bias against Toronto. There must be another reason for it, because its there.

 

[Hibachi]

Could care less about all of this stuff, just don't get involved in any decision making, and I'll be happy. Although its pretty obvious that they already got involved with Burke.

 

[Longshot]

I don't get it. Why couldn't Tannenbaum just break the tie?

Is he such a gutless wonder that he's not willing to say: "Hey, this is a good deal for the league as a whole. And I know Bell is upset, but I have to vote with Rogers on this and approve the deal."

 

[Cor]

They abstained due to the fact that Bell owns part of the Leafs.

Nothing really newsworthy. They didn't vote against a company who owns half of MLSE.

 

[Al14]

They abstained due to the fact that Bell owns part of the Leafs.

Nothing really newsworthy. They didn't vote against a company who owns half of MLSE.

This sounds about right!

 

[AustonMitchWilly]

They abstained due to the fact that Bell owns part of the Leafs.

Nothing really newsworthy. They didn't vote against a company who owns half of MLSE.

Nothing more than being respectful to a conflict of interest.

 

[leafs in five]

They abstained due to the fact that Bell owns part of the Leafs.

yeah and it's kind of strange that an NHL team has an ownership group that includes two companies that are bitter rivals one of which just cut the other out of covering the NHL including the team they own part of for the next decade.

 

[Faustus]

I don't get it. Why couldn't Tannenbaum just break the tie?

Is he such a gutless wonder that he's not willing to say: "Hey, this is a good deal for the league as a whole. And I know Bell is upset, but I have to vote with Rogers on this and approve the deal."

Why would he bother? He abstained, didn't piss anyone off, and will still make huge money from the deal.

 

[TOGuy14]

I predicted a long time ago that they would exist harmoniously until one of the two behemoths bought the hockey rights out and that would cause a massive fracture.

Specifically, I had written

I am curious to see what happens when the HNIC contract comes up and CBC / TSN (Bell) / Sportsnet (Rogers) are all bidding on that deal. I strongly doubt that the CRTC would let Rogers and Bell make some sort of deal to split the games, and I don't think the NHL would want their strongest brand having alternate premier slots. This will likely be the biggest source of upcoming tension in their relationship.

 

[theIceWookie]

Hehe, I can't wait to see the shotgun clause invoked

 

[Pi]

I don't get it. Why couldn't Tannenbaum just break the tie?

Is he such a gutless wonder that he's not willing to say: "Hey, this is a good deal for the league as a whole. And I know Bell is upset, but I have to vote with Rogers on this and approve the deal."

Who cares about the vote. Abstaining makes sense as both parties own the Leafs, both parties tried to bid for the national rights.

If Bell had won, the result would be the same. Leafs vote doesn't really matter because both Rogers and Bell own the Leafs and it's getting passed no matter what.

 

[Stephen]

Eventually, Rogers will basically own the entire NHL indirectly, turning the whole league into a giant house league whose sole purpose is to provide Canadians with overpriced content.

 

[The CyNick]

its funny how much play this story is getting. really nothing to see here. LT approached the league and the suggested abstaining. its not a sign of a break down in the relationship.

 

[AustonMitchWilly]

its funny how much play this story is getting. really nothing to see here. LT approached the league and the suggested abstaining. its not a sign of a break down in the relationship.

If anything, its a sign of respect in it.

 

[Warden of the North]

Well of course they were going to.

I think Bell eventually ends up with Rogers share.....or Larry's

 

[The Legend]

I think people are missing the part where (taken with a grain of salt obviously) it was believed that Bettman convinced LT not to vote against the deal. That's pretty noteworthy...

 

[cyris]

This is a non story. The Maple Leafs ownership had a conflict of interest and therefor didn't vote on the matter.

Damien Cox is just a professional troll. Nothing to see here.

 

[MajorityRules*]

While I agree this isn't really a story, I've never been a supporter of the duel ownership with Bell and Rogers. Simply put they are competitors and if you ever want to see grown adults turn into children, watch them fight over power. The real loser here will be the Leafs and their fans as it's already been shown they can't keep their fingers out of hockey operations with the firing of Burke.

 

[I Believe]

Seems like a no-brainer.

Why vote and possibly piss off Bell when you can simply abstain from voting? Pretty much any exec would do the same thing in his place.

 

[Squiffy]

Seems like a no-brainer.

Why vote and possibly piss off Bell when you can simply abstain from voting? Pretty much any exec would do the same thing in his place.

Well, it not exactly up to him, he's not casting "his" vote, he's casting MLSE's vote, based on whatever direction the board gave him. Either they decided it was a conflict of interest and they shouldn't vote (likely), or Bell and Rogers couldn't agree, and since they have agreed to vote as a block on the MLSE board that left abstaining. Or c, all of the above.

 

[pooleboy]

Bell owns half the leafs (well whatever) obviously they would vote no. Doesn't bell own a part of the Canadians too, im not sure but i thought they did for a little while.

Nothing to see here, obviously bell would reject this deal... and Rogers knew it would go threw even if TOronto said no.

 

[Warden of the North]

Bell owns half the leafs (well whatever) obviously they would vote no. Doesn't bell own a part of the Canadians too, im not sure but i thought they did for a little while.

Nothing to see here, obviously bell would reject this deal... and Rogers knew it would go threw even if TOronto said no.

I think they had to sell off their share of the Habs

 

[rojac]

I think they had to sell off their share of the Habs

Nope, Bell owns 18% of the Habs.
The reason why Bell owns only 28.5% of the MLSE (the Bell pension plan owns the other 9% of their 37.5%) is to stay under 30% which lets them hold on to their Habs share.