• BAL 3
    CLE 7
    Final
    1:05 PM ET
  • NYY 5
    TOR 1
    Final
    1:05 PM ET
  • DET 5
    KC 8
    Final
    1:10 PM ET
  • TB 8
    MIN 6
    Final
    1:10 PM ET
  • ATL 0
    NYM 0
    Postponed
    1:35 PM ET
  • PHI 3
    PIT 2
    Final
    1:35 PM ET
  • CWS 1
    HOU 7
    Final
    2:10 PM ET
  • MIL 4
    MIA 2
    Final
    2:10 PM ET
  • STL 9
    CIN 2
    Final
    2:15 PM ET
  • TEX 7
    SEA 4
    In Progress
    Top 9th
  • COL 4
    CHC 9
    In Progress
    Bottom 7th
  • OAK 1
    BOS 1
    In Progress
    Top 7th
  • LAA 0
    SF 4
    In Progress
    Middle 5th
  • ARI 4
    SD 0
    In Progress
    Top 6th
  • LAD
    WSH
    Preview
    8:05 PM ET
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 17 to 32 of 143

Thread: Rogers looking into selling blue jays.....

  1. #17
    Hall of Famer burlingtonbandit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    16,873
    Thanks
    719
    Thanked 2,141 Times in 1,536 Posts
    I remember someone in the media saying how MLB wouldn't allow a corporate owner again so that probably squashes MLSE as a potential buyer.

  2. #18
    Hall of Famer burlingtonbandit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    16,873
    Thanks
    719
    Thanked 2,141 Times in 1,536 Posts
    Worst case: New owner comes in doesn't get along with Shapiro and fires him hiring some new guy who's terrible.

  3. #19
    DONOR | Super Moderator G-Snarls's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    26,165
    Thanks
    1,794
    Thanked 4,077 Times in 2,733 Posts
    Wayne Gretzky and Daryl Katz or bust

  4. #20
    All Star Pendleton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    4,437
    Thanks
    1,543
    Thanked 1,677 Times in 968 Posts
    The Rogers empire is the 4th most wealthy in Canada. Sure we could end up with someone who is more aggressive with less money, but I'd feel safer if our deep pocketed ownership just hangs on.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Pendleton For This Useful Post:

    KingKat (12-06-2017)

  6. #21
    DONOR | Super Moderator G-Snarls's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    26,165
    Thanks
    1,794
    Thanked 4,077 Times in 2,733 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Pendleton View Post
    The Rogers empire is the 4th most wealthy in Canada. Sure we could end up with someone who is more aggressive with less money, but I'd feel safer if our deep pocketed ownership just hangs on.
    Me too

    No appetite for change in the next decade

  7. #22
    DONOR | Super Moderator G-Snarls's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    26,165
    Thanks
    1,794
    Thanked 4,077 Times in 2,733 Posts
    But if they do.... Katz and Gretzky

    A billionaire business person putting up most of the money and staying behind the scenes and a sports hero putting up less money but being the face of ownership seems like a good concept (Dodgers and Marlins being recent examples)

  8. #23
    All Star
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    4,154
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 471 Times in 326 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by fatcowxlive View Post
    MLB has a say in fair market value for TV Deals I’m pretty sure. They probably won’t get a cut price unless they sell the team for cheap. That’s why I think the MLSE will probably be the way to go, Rogers are going to have to probably pay an astronomical price for the Jays given their success in TV ratings and Nation-wide reach
    I just meant on the lower end of what is reasonable, and it would obviously effect the price. More important to Rogers would be a lengthy contract so they retain control of the TV rights.

    Regardless having the richest family in Canada own the Jays wouldn't be a bad thing. They own a large portion of the Jets. They paid 77 million US for a painting in 2002. A 300 million dollar contract wouldn't even phase them! Hopefully they are baseball fans..lol. Wait, the Thompson family has a large position in Bell. Rogers would never sell to them.

  9. #24
    All Star Sammy225's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    4,920
    Thanks
    315
    Thanked 1,586 Times in 965 Posts
    you guys think Jeter wants another team..... I mean he is doing such a bang up job with his other one.

  10. #25
    Gameday Master fatcowxlive's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Toronto!
    Posts
    18,507
    Thanks
    3,582
    Thanked 2,286 Times in 1,552 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by saskjayfan View Post
    I just meant on the lower end of what is reasonable, and it would obviously effect the price. More important to Rogers would be a lengthy contract so they retain control of the TV rights.

    Regardless having the richest family in Canada own the Jays wouldn't be a bad thing. They own a large portion of the Jets. They paid 77 million US for a painting in 2002. A 300 million dollar contract wouldn't even phase them! Hopefully they are baseball fans..lol. Wait, the Thompson family has a large position in Bell. Rogers would never sell to them.
    Rogers and Bell are in bed together on a lot of things, they'll sell if they deem that's what it takes to improve their wireless and cable departments.

    I was listening to 590 this morning and Brunt brought up a good point, one of the reasons Rogers could be selling the team is because of how the internet is continuing to eat away at cable. And they have a point, the CRTC already made rulings a couple of years ago about bundling and they're going to continue to try and give Canadians more options, plus with MLB.tv subscriber rates increasing and Google and Amazon looking like they're prepping for a battle on live sports, who knows if cable will be as profitable as it is now.
    Quote Originally Posted by havok24 View Post
    1. Integrate the following function "Insert function"
    fatcow's answer: Beltran to 3B.

  11. #26
    Prospect BallsDeep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    132
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 10 Times in 6 Posts
    I'd love a Mark Cuban type owner.

  12. #27
    All Star Dick_Pole's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    3,981
    Thanks
    333
    Thanked 1,463 Times in 889 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by AdamGreenwood View Post
    Yeah, you don't want a sportsteam owned by a public corporation, because shareholders don't invest to see a championship, they invest to see a return on their investment, so every decision the owner makes, has to be towards profit generation.

    Instead, we need an egotistical asswipe, who doesn't give a shit about money, and just wants to drive around in his Lambo, showing hoes his World Series rings.
    Alright boys we need to start pumping my stocks. Owning a sports team/Jays is on my bucket list.

  13. #28
    All Star Dick_Pole's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    3,981
    Thanks
    333
    Thanked 1,463 Times in 889 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by fatcowxlive View Post
    Rogers and Bell are in bed together on a lot of things, they'll sell if they deem that's what it takes to improve their wireless and cable departments.

    I was listening to 590 this morning and Brunt brought up a good point, one of the reasons Rogers could be selling the team is because of how the internet is continuing to eat away at cable. And they have a point, the CRTC already made rulings a couple of years ago about bundling and they're going to continue to try and give Canadians more options, plus with MLB.tv subscriber rates increasing and Google and Amazon looking like they're prepping for a battle on live sports, who knows if cable will be as profitable as it is now.
    Yes, it's funny that people think that these corporations are mortal enemies or something. There is so much employee turnover within the industry that they all remain friends and have lunch with each other as they move up the ranks in each corporation. I say that as someone who worked for one of the big telcos. I have kept in contact with more people who work for competitors now than I have with people still with my former employer.

    Bell and Rogers would marry each other in a heart beat with all the execs collecting big bonus payouts and stock options on a temporary stock pump if the CRTC allowed it.

  14. #29
    All Star Sammy225's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    4,920
    Thanks
    315
    Thanked 1,586 Times in 965 Posts
    BJMB could pool our money and look to buy... I hear King is pretty thrifty with his allowance

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sammy225 For This Useful Post:

    BTS (12-06-2017),Deadpool (12-06-2017)

  16. #30
    All Star AdamGreenwood's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    343
    Thanked 2,078 Times in 1,214 Posts
    We need the Thomson family.

  17. #31
    DONOR Spanky99's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    43,253
    Thanks
    44,662
    Thanked 8,584 Times in 6,596 Posts
    Rogers Communications Considering Sale Of Blue Jays
    By Jeff Todd | December 6, 2017 at 8:18am CDT

    Rogers Communications, the Canadian telecommunications company that owns the Toronto Blue Jays, is considering a possible sale of the team, as Natalie Wong of Bloomberg writes. At this point, it seems the potential move is merely in the conceptual stage.

    Rogers CFO Tony Staffieri suggests that the entity is pondering the sale in order to raise funds for other initiatives. Other significant Rogers investments are also under consideration for sale, so it seems the broader strategic considerations are driving the company more than any particular consideration tied to the ballclub.

    That said, there’s little doubt that Rogers is also aware of the potential to lock in a massive gain on its initial purchase of the Jays. Back in 2000, an eighty percent stake cost just $112MM. Given that a struggling Marlins franchise just went for $1.2B, it stands to reason that Canada’s only MLB team — a marketing juggernaut with excellent attendance figures even in losing seasons and robust profitability in winning campaigns — would fetch quite a bit more.

    Clearly, there’s little reason to think that any sale effort is imminent, let alone a deal itself. But it’s plenty significant that ownership has floated the idea, since that’ll surely function as an initial gauge on market interest and value.

    In the meantime, it’s naturally fair to wonder how the higher-level business maneuverings might trickle down to the baseball operations. Perhaps the likeliest scenario, though, is to anticipate a continuation of the recent past. Even in the Marlins’ situation, the club waited to make major changes in the lead-up to the sale. Here, there’s good cause to think the Jays will continue their trajectory of attempting to contend while also being notably mindful of maintaining future financial flexibility and building up their farm.

  18. #32
    All Star Brownie19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Wasaga Beach
    Posts
    6,099
    Thanks
    1,977
    Thanked 1,697 Times in 1,103 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by fatcowxlive View Post
    Rogers and Bell are in bed together on a lot of things, they'll sell if they deem that's what it takes to improve their wireless and cable departments.

    I was listening to 590 this morning and Brunt brought up a good point, one of the reasons Rogers could be selling the team is because of how the internet is continuing to eat away at cable. And they have a point, the CRTC already made rulings a couple of years ago about bundling and they're going to continue to try and give Canadians more options, plus with MLB.tv subscriber rates increasing and Google and Amazon looking like they're prepping for a battle on live sports, who knows if cable will be as profitable as it is now.
    I'd have to imagine Rogers is already driven as an internet and data provider than as a "cable" company no? I read they are considering this due to the massive jump in data use and the need to further invest in that department......that's clearly the future of their company. Cable is all but dead.

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to Brownie19 For This Useful Post:

    KingKat (12-06-2017)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •