Who makes up MLSE?

[psrs1]

Can anyone inform me as to who are ALL the members who make up MLSE
(With picture if able) and what percentage of shares they own and information regarding their philosophy and background ? This will aid us all if we should ever run into one of the board members at the ACC in asking pointed questions.

[S.R.]

As far as I understand these things, Bell and Rogers split 75% of the ownership and Larry Tannenbaum's Kilmer Sports owns the other 25%. MLSE isn't a publically traded company that can be invested in directly.

The board of directors + photos is here:
http://www.mlse.com/inside_mlse/board_of_directors.aspx

[mjt20mik]

As far as I understand these things, Bell and Rogers split 75% of the ownership and Larry Tannenbaum's Kilmer Sports owns the other 25%. MLSE isn't a publically traded company that can be invested in directly.

The board of directors + photos is here:
http://www.mlse.com/inside_mlse/board_of_directors.aspx

I actually golfed with Siim. He's a pretty cool dude.

[psrs1]

As far as I understand these things, Bell and Rogers split 75% of the ownership and Larry Tannenbaum's Kilmer Sports owns the other 25%. MLSE isn't a publically traded company that can be invested in directly.

The board of directors + photos is here:
http://www.mlse.com/inside_mlse/board_of_directors.aspx

Any background information on any members? Am I the only one that finds it odd that we know so little about these members given that they constitute one of the most affluent and influential ownership groups in all of professional sports?

[Nilanka]

Any background information on any members? Am I the only one that finds it odd that we know so little about these members given that they constitute one of the most affluent and influential ownership groups in all of professional sports?

What do we really need to know about them?

[Bendit]

What do we really need to know about them?

...do they pull up their pants one leg at a time?
...can they trot and chew gum simultaneously?
...how often do they practice their free throws?

[S.R.]

Since they are board members, in my experience there is a 95% chance that they:
1. Show up late for board meetings, since they're such busy cats with many other things to do such as yell "Buy buy buy!" into their phones while riding the escalator.
2. Never read the meeting agenda that was emailed to them two days ago, since they are such busy cats...(see point 1. above).
3. Never remember what was discussed at the last meeting since they showed up late, left early, and spent all the time in-between emailing on their Blackberries (yes, these are the people who still use Blackberries).
4. Get in the way of any significant decision because of egos and personal interests.
5. Add nothing to all the other decisions that would actually benefit from them putting even 2% of their daily calorie use into thinking actual thoughts, since they are such busy cats...(see point 1. above).

[S.R.]

Any background information on any members? Am I the only one that finds it odd that we know so little about these members given that they constitute one of the most affluent and influential ownership groups in all of professional sports?

It's not that weird, since it's a privately owned company that doesn't owe the general public anything in terms of disclosing background information about board members.

This is interesting, though:
"Bell and Rogers agreed that their four votes on the six-person board will always vote as one, which will prevent any deadlocks. It would also prevent Tanenbaum from aligning himself with one company against another if they disagree on an issue. Apparently, Bell and Rogers will hash it out in private how they will vote before any vote is taken." -- http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle4426208/

Basically the board members are puppet rulers. Knowing anything about them won't mean much, since they're being told what to do by senior management at Bell & Rogers.

[MACK11]

A bunch of egotistical money hungry suites

[psrs1]

I still don't know anything more....like are they primarily motivated by money or do they have a passion for certain sports etc. I know a whole lot more about Mark Cuban than any MLSE board member .....

[CalgaryRapsFan]

I still don't know anything more....like are they primarily motivated by money or do they have a passion for certain sports etc. I know a whole lot more about Mark Cuban than any MLSE board member .....

Why do the two things have to be mutually exclusive?

With Rogers/Bell as primary stakeholders, I would argue the two are intimately entwined. Without a passion for sports (which I assume to mean a desire to win and willingness to spend money to do so), the product on the field/court/ice would be sub-par, which would in turn diminish returns from a financial standpoint (ie: less public interest, lower ticket sales, lower merchandise sales, lower advertising revenue, less corporate investment). The best way for Rogers/Bell to reap the financial benefits of professional sports ownership is to field a winning team that garners public/media support, which obviously requires investment on their part.

It's cliché, but I think the axiom 'you have to spend money to make money' fits here. The balancing act is knowing the difference between spending wisely and spending just to spend, and determining the point of maximization between investing and enjoying the return on investment.

[psrs1]

Why do the two things have to be mutually exclusive?

With Rogers/Bell as primary stakeholders, I would argue the two are intimately entwined. Without a passion for sports (which I assume to mean a desire to win and willingness to spend money to do so), the product on the field/court/ice would be sub-par, which would in turn diminish returns from a financial standpoint (ie: less public interest, lower ticket sales, lower merchandise sales, lower advertising revenue, less corporate investment). The best way for Rogers/Bell to reap the financial benefits of professional sports ownership is to field a winning team that garners public/media support, which obviously requires investment on their part.

It's cliché, but I think the axiom 'you have to spend money to make money' fits here. The balancing act is knowing the difference between spending wisely and spending just to spend, and determining the point of maximization between investing and enjoying the return on investment.

They may not be mutually exclusive but is there any evidence / information to indicate that these MLSE board members view Leafs/Raps/Toronto FC anything more than a business?

If we as sports fans were to pick stocks for these suits and year in and year out posted the same results as these guys do for our sports teams' how acceptable would that be to them?

[Bendit]

They may not be mutually exclusive but is there any evidence / information to indicate that these MLSE board members view Leafs/Raps/Toronto FC anything more than a business?

If we as sports fans were to pick stocks for these suits and year in and year out posted the same results as these guys do for our sports teams' how acceptable would that be to them?

I dont know if I can articulate why the "sports fan" analogy is an inappropriate one but I do believe picking stocks is probably easier year-over-year (unless there is a depression or financial collapse ...and then one can keep shorting) than it is to maintain a winning professional sports team. Re the stock market the investing options are numerous....not so with acquisitions of players and all the restrictions entailed. And then one need only to invest in the S&P index and one is pretty much guaranteed a return in normal circumstances. I dont know if there is a "winning a championship" comparison in the stock market unless of course getting into Google or Apple at the outset.

In any case, you really must embrace the notion that the "fan" is out of the equation in terms of the important decision making when it comes to sports leagues management. I mean does anyone ask our opinion as to who should own a franchise before it's sold/acquired? The Clippers reached a nadir when there was great public blowback and even then it is my contention that if it were not for the players on the team or major companies threatening postures, Donald Sterling might still be the owner.

As have many who have said this before....the only way to effect change in a sports team management is hurt in the pocketbook. And for many reasons this requires a real confluence of events over a significant time bringing despair to the fanbase. Even the worst ownership recognizes when the rumbles begin and fires the upper level of management before looking in the mirror itself.

As someone else said, this is a private enterprise (MLSE) and they do not have to volunteer any more information than their possibly their business related bio.

[golden]

It's not that weird, since it's a privately owned company that doesn't owe the general public anything in terms of disclosing background information about board members.

This is interesting, though:
"Bell and Rogers agreed that their four votes on the six-person board will always vote as one, which will prevent any deadlocks. It would also prevent Tanenbaum from aligning himself with one company against another if they disagree on an issue. Apparently, Bell and Rogers will hash it out in private how they will vote before any vote is taken." -- http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle4426208/

Basically the board members are puppet rulers. Knowing anything about them won't mean much, since they're being told what to do by senior management at Bell & Rogers.

And if they don't hash it out?

[CalgaryRapsFan]

They may not be mutually exclusive but is there any evidence / information to indicate that these MLSE board members view Leafs/Raps/Toronto FC anything more than a business?

If we as sports fans were to pick stocks for these suits and year in and year out posted the same results as these guys do for our sports teams' how acceptable would that be to them?

I think you missed my point. You seem to think that running professional sports franchise as a business means that they don't worry about winning. My whole point was that worrying about winning can be the most effective way of making the business more successful and more profitable.

Back when the OTP was running the show, they were worried about short-term profitability for their pensioners. They weren't running the team from a sports (winning) or business (long-term view with market share, viewership, advertising dollars, etc...) goals in mind.

I don't think the current MLSE and the old MLSE/OTP situations are anything close to being the same.