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

[Leafidelity]

Seems pretty obvious that they didn't want a Conflict of Interest

 

[shakes]

The title gives the impression that the Leafs voted No but they abstained. It's subtle, but makes a huge difference.

 

[The Legend]

Seems pretty obvious that they didn't want a Conflict of Interest

Then why would LT want to vote no?

Unless Cox just made that part up....

 

[The Legend]

The title gives the impression that the Leafs voted No but they abstained. It's subtle, but makes a huge difference.

That's just based on the heading in Cox's article....

"Leafs refused to approve NHL Rogers deal."

 

[rojac]

The Globe and Mail tells a slightly different story than Cox.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/conflict-of-interest-behind-mlses-decision-to-abstain-from-nhl-vote/article15920736/

 

[TOG26]

Then why would LT want to vote no?

Unless Cox just made that part up....

Think you more or less answered your question with the second part.

 

[Leafidelity]

Then why would LT want to vote no?

Unless Cox just made that part up....

I find Cox likes to speculate without mentioning he's speculating. Leaving a lot of his stuff in that gray area that he can get out of if he's proven wrong.

 

[The Legend]

Cox and Shoalts getting into a bit of a twitter tussle on the issue.

Shoalts' article here Link says that conflict of interest was the reason, and LT was advised by Dale Lastman (his lawyer and fellow board member) to abstain.

Cox reiterated on twitter that it was not a conflict of interest issue.


Decide for ourselves I guess.

 

[rojac]

I find Cox likes to speculate without mentioning he's speculating. Leaving a lot of his stuff in that gray area that he can get out of if he's proven wrong.

You have to remember that Cox is a columnist not a reporter and often one of the goals of a columnist is to stir things up.

 

[Ratboy]

Nothing more than being respectful to a conflict of interest.

But there's nothing respectable about the multiple conflicts of interest MSLE holds.

 

[shakes]

Cox and Shoalts getting into a bit of a twitter tussle on the issue.

Shoalts' article here Link says that conflict of interest was the reason, and LT was advised by Dale Lastman (his lawyer and fellow board member) to abstain.

Cox reiterated on twitter that it was not a conflict of interest issue.


Decide for ourselves I guess.

But it IS a conflict of interest. Both Bell and Rogers own the Leafs and were bidding on a TV deal. How did the Canadians vote? Does it say anywhere? Since Bell owns them, I'm sure they voted no. Does Cox say anything about that?

 

[cyris]

But it IS a conflict of interest. Both Bell and Rogers own the Leafs and were bidding on a TV deal. How did the Canadians vote? Does it say anywhere? Since Bell owns them, I'm sure they voted no. Does Cox say anything about that?

The Canadians voted yes. We know this because it says in both articles posted in this thread that the vote was 29-0 with the Leafs abstaining.

The Leafs likely abstained because it would be a conflict of interest to vote on a mater where they had a financial interest outside of the best interests of the team they represent or the League.

 

[BraveCanadian]

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.

Right. This falls under the "Duh, it would be a conflict of interest if I voted so I abstain" that everyone but Rob Ford should be able to understand.