maplesyrup
New member
Zee said:
Read the whole article. Seems firing Burke might have been as much of a corporate statement against MLSE than anything else. - It's just not a good thing. That said, I guess it shouldn't be unexpected either.
Burke Fired
- Thread starter dappleganger
- Start date
Read the whole article. Seems firing Burke might have been as much of a corporate statement against MLSE than anything else. - It's just not a good thing. That said, I guess it shouldn't be unexpected either.
bustaheims
Active member
Honestly, I think this whole corporate in-fighting story is getting blown out of proportion. There was likely a disagreement from the board about Burke, sure, but, that doesn't mean there's any ill will going forward or that it will have any material changes in how the team is run. I know we're all used to ownership being a bit of a mess, but, this is not necessarily a signal that it still is. Bell and Rogers only recently took ownership. Some turmoil and turnover is to be expected. Things will settle down. The sky is not falling.
bustaheims said:
It's not that the sky is falling, it's just that their ability to react quickly is hampered if there is a difference of opinion within the board. It's one disadvantage to having a board as opposed to one owner. However, if you have an owner that is a nutbar, well that's not good either....
maplesyrup
New member
bustaheims said:
Nobody is saying it is and yeah, things will settle down but nobody likes it while things are unsettled either. Nobody likes to see good people canned in restructuring. - and I'm not just talking about Burke either. I suspect we'll see a few more heads roll as chests continue to puff.
Zee
Active member
Rob said:
I did read the article, why is it not a good thing? They're essentially trying to "turn the page" from the corporate way of doing things in the past. The article made mention that Tanenbaum "thinks he runs the business". Sounds like it's a battle between the majority shareholders (Bell/Rogers) and minority (Tanenbaum), which is a battle Larry can't win. In the past the teacher's pension fund didn't care about hockey operations so Tanenbaum/Peddie had huge influence, not the case anymore. If Bell/Rogers are serious about turning the Leafs into a winner again, I'm happy they've alienated Tanenbaum. Let them spend money and build up the Leafs, it's a win-win for the fans in my opinion.
Like I said in another post, the best way for Bell/Rogers to make huge return on the Leafs is to turn the franchise in a perennial contender. They'll be able to charge more for everything, they'll gain new fans and re-claim lost disillusioned fans. It only makes sense for them to take an active interest in how well the Leafs perform on the ice. If they put the right hockey people in place, and commit to spend the money on the team, the Leafs can finally turn around once and for all. I want this team to have the type of long-term success that a city like Detroit has seen. Always in the playoffs, a few cups along the way and always considered a top destination for players.
bustaheims
Active member
Significantly Insignificant said:
It's not at all. Bell and Rogers own 75% of the votes and they have to vote together - they don't own the votes separately, they own them jointly. As long as they agree on things, it doesn't matter what Tannenbaum wants, and, so far, he's been the only board member known to have an issue here.
maplesyrup
New member
Zee said:
No. They're trying to do things the Bell/Rogers way and straight-arming (for want of better term) Tanenbaum. Now, yeah, maybe it winds up better that way in the long run (maybe it doesn't) but you can understand that times of transition (I wanted to use the word "turmoil") are never good though, I'm sure.
ZBBM
Active member
Corn Flake said:
Why ugh? Why be worried if there's an RPB war going on? MLSE needs to be reconstructed from the ground up. It's not like the current model, or its predecessors, are worth keeping. I say let them battle it out, cut Tanenbaum down to size, and then move ahead.
The writer makes a good point that I hadn't thought of before: Bell/Rogers has more at stake, PR- and brandwise, than Teachers. If that means less acceptance of mediocrity, wahoo.
maplesyrup
New member
bustaheims said:
He's the Chair though (not just any board member.) - It's never a good thing when they're not on the same page... at least optically.
Zee
Active member
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
Oh yeah, if there's one way to make customers hate Bell/Rogers anymore than they already do, it's to keep the Leafs as a laughing stock of the league. Sure, non-Leafs fans might love them, but there's a huge Ontario portion of the population that can now point fingers at specific companies, and hurt those companies right in their pocketbook. How could Leafs fans ever show frustration at the Teacher's Pension Fund? Yell at a teacher? ;D
bustaheims
Active member
Rob said:
He's the Non-Executive Chairman, which is practically an honourary position, and one that doesn't grant him any real power.
maplesyrup
New member
Zee said:
... and that's really why I say "Ugh." Nobody knows if that's a good or bad thing at this point. Until it works itself out, it's messy no matter how you slice it.
maplesyrup
New member
bustaheims said:
So who's the official Chairman of the Board? If the answer is nobody, that could be a problem too.
bustaheims
Active member
Rob said:
He's the official Chairman, it's just that the position of Chairman doesn't grant him any actual power. It's more of a ceremonial position.
maplesyrup
New member
bustaheims said:
Perfect. :
So why have a Chairman then?
bustaheims
Active member
Deebo said:
It does, but, the Bell and Rogers representatives hold 75% of the votes since they own 75% of the company, and since they don't own them directly, but, rather, through a jointly owned holding company, those votes all go one way. That way, neither Rogers nor Bell can get Tannenbaum to vote with them against the other on matters that have direct impact on each other's business in relation (like, for instance, what station get broadcast rights to what amount of games) to the Leafs/Raps/TFC/etc.
bustaheims
Active member
Rob said:Perfect. :
Well, someone has to run the meetings. He's sort of like the Speaker of the House, except his votes don't really matter.