What's in it for Rogers Communications?

[Rivermont Mike]

I've been reading the posts on TBD about the expected expansion of the Bills/Rogers deal. While there's been a lot of debate among TBD fans about what this extensions means for the Bills and the franchise's future in Buffalo, there's virtually no discussion about Rogers' motivation. Even this article from canoe.ca doesn't really delve into the Rogers side of things. The last paragraph of the article mentions that Rogers recently acquired co-controlling shares of two sport franchises: "As well, pending final approval, Rogers Communications bought a co-controlling share of the NHL's Toronto Maple Leafs and NBA's Toronto Raptors, along with Bell Canada."

 

My question: is Rogers looking to diversify its entertainment portfolio and doing some live, regular-season-game market testing, i.e. the "Bills/Toronto series? The games enable it to assess demand for NFL product in Toronto/southern Ontario and gauge WNY- and US-based Bills fan reaction to the game day experience at its facility vs. the Ralph. (My hope is that they are getting a clue that there will not be tens of thousands of fans who will follow the franchise to Toronto. I won't.) Yeah, its a lot of money for market research, but if you have to justify dropping upwards of $1B US to your shareholders to acquire an NFL franchise, you'd better have your data ready. Two five-year series at $75M each--and this newest is going to be less than that, supposedly--is only about 10% of the eventual purchase price for this franchise. That's right in line with standard practice.

 

If Rogers is in an acquisitive mode, it knows that an NFL franchise will make it far more than the Raptors or Maple Leafs will ever make. The value of the TV deal alone would add a healthy infusion of cash to its operations.

 

And here's the kicker: if a stadium deal goes through, and the state and its taxpayers pay the bill for a nice renovation, the smart move would be to keep the franchise in Buffalo where there's a built-in fan base that draws from all over the region, including Toronto and So. Ontario. Rogers could provide luxury coaches to transport corporate box owners to the Ralph and still make a killing. Moving the team to Toronto, where the marketing team would have to a) fight to get the Toronto and Ont. fans to attend in profitable numbers, and b) overcome hoards of the CFL-for Canada ilk who will suddenly become fervent Hamilton Ti-Cats fans, would be a monumental blunder.

 

It would be great to see Pegula get the team. But if he doesn't, don't assume that a Rogers purchase would mean a slam-dunk move north. They are clearly not engaged in the Bills/Toronto Series to make money hand over fist. If this is a portfolio move, it could be the best thing for the Buffalo Bills. Lots of foreign companies own assets in the States, and they don't change the name or location. Profit is profit, and we're all proving that the Bills are a viable, profitable NFL product--even with more than a decade of struggle.

 

Do you really care if the team is owned by an old dude in Detroit or a monolithic media/entertainment company in Toronto? I don't. As long as this franchise stays in Buffalo, I'm good.

 

I'd be interested in your perspective on what kind of skin Rogers has in this game.

 

GO BILLS!!

[Best Player Available]

I've been reading the posts on TBD about the expected expansion of the Bills/Rogers deal. While there's been a lot of debate among TBD fans about what this extensions means for the Bills and the franchise's future in Buffalo, there's virtually no discussion about Rogers' motivation. Even this article from canoe.ca doesn't really delve into the Rogers side of things. The last paragraph of the article mentions that Rogers recently acquired co-controlling shares of two sport franchises: "As well, pending final approval, Rogers Communications bought a co-controlling share of the NHL's Toronto Maple Leafs and NBA's Toronto Raptors, along with Bell Canada."

 

My question: is Rogers looking to diversify its entertainment portfolio and doing some live, regular-season-game market testing, i.e. the "Bills/Toronto series? The games enable it to assess demand for NFL product in Toronto/southern Ontario and gauge WNY- and US-based Bills fan reaction to the game day experience at its facility vs. the Ralph. (My hope is that they are getting a clue that there will not be tens of thousands of fans who will follow the franchise to Toronto. I won't.) Yeah, its a lot of money for market research, but if you have to justify dropping upwards of $1B US to your shareholders to acquire an NFL franchise, you'd better have your data ready. Two five-year series at $75M each--and this newest is going to be less than that, supposedly--is only about 10% of the eventual purchase price for this franchise. That's right in line with standard practice.

 

If Rogers is in an acquisitive mode, it knows that an NFL franchise will make it far more than the Raptors or Maple Leafs will ever make. The value of the TV deal alone would add a healthy infusion of cash to its operations.

 

And here's the kicker: if a stadium deal goes through, and the state and its taxpayers pay the bill for a nice renovation, the smart move would be to keep the franchise in Buffalo where there's a built-in fan base that draws from all over the region, including Toronto and So. Ontario. Rogers could provide luxury coaches to transport corporate box owners to the Ralph and still make a killing. Moving the team to Toronto, where the marketing team would have to a) fight to get the Toronto and Ont. fans to attend in profitable numbers, and b) overcome hoards of the CFL-for Canada ilk who will suddenly become fervent Hamilton Ti-Cats fans, would be a monumental blunder.

 

It would be great to see Pegula get the team. But if he doesn't, don't assume that a Rogers purchase would mean a slam-dunk move north. They are clearly not engaged in the Bills/Toronto Series to make money hand over fist. If this is a portfolio move, it could be the best thing for the Buffalo Bills. Lots of foreign companies own assets in the States, and they don't change the name or location. Profit is profit, and we're all proving that the Bills are a viable, profitable NFL product--even with more than a decade of struggle.

 

Do you really care if the team is owned by an old dude in Detroit or a monolithic media/entertainment company in Toronto? I don't. As long as this franchise stays in Buffalo, I'm good.

 

I'd be interested in your perspective on what kind of skin Rogers has in this game.

 

GO BILLS!!

I think your own perspective is pretty good and hard to disagree with. If and when the Bills turn it around the TO games could become profitable for all involved except ticket holders at the Ralph. A long term investment for Rogers. The likelyhood of the Bills moving North is slim since they need to build a stadium and the CFL would certainly have input, economy related BS to. Maybe Rogers if they are a player in buying the team would be happy with the Bills in Buffalo. Money is money to a corp.

[BillnutinHouston]

I don't have an answer, but kudos for raising an interesting topic. This question (what's in it for Rogers?) has occurred to me as well. I think your hypothesis is as good as any.

 

Maybe Rogers IS toying with adding the NFL to their portfolio. If they keep the team based in Buffalo, they get the benefit of an occasional game up north without being condemned at home as unpatriotic for launching a direct challenge to the CFL. This scenario is yet another one in favor of the Bills-Toronto Series. Lining up deep-pocketed investors behind the Bills is a spectacularly good thing for the long-term viability of the franchise.

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

That is an interesting slant you have and one worth considering

[eball]

NFL rules prohibit ownership by a corporation, if I'm not mistaken. But this is an interesting topic.

[PromoTheRobot]

If the Bills do manage to get good they will become a valuable brand in Toronto. Rogers could just see the extension as preserving their investment.

 

PTR

[Chilly]

NFL rules prohibit ownership by a corporation, if I'm not mistaken. But this is an interesting topic.

 

Correct, and there has to be an individual who is a majority owner.

[Rivermont Mike]

Correct, and there has to be an individual who is a majority owner.

 

Thanks for the reminder about the corporate ownership rule. I just checked Rogers' annual report (I googled something like "Rogers Communications structure). I wanted to see if it was private or public. It is public, but it is relatively closely held. The companies 18 owners hold over 91 percent of the company's stock. Three or four of them are survivors of Ted Rogers. It would seem that there could be enough personal wealth to see a primary owner emerge.

 

The rule blows a hole in my theory about Rogers' diversification. However, it brings me back to my original question. What's in it for Rogers? If it awfully expensive dabbling minus some intent. Another question: do any of you remember if the Bills sought this out, or did Rogers approach Wilson/Brandon?

[Buffalo_Stampede]

Thanks for the reminder about the corporate ownership rule. I just checked Rogers' annual report (I googled something like "Rogers Communications structure). I wanted to see if it was private or public. It is public, but it is relatively closely held. The companies 18 owners hold over 91 percent of the company's stock. Three or four of them are survivors of Ted Rogers. It would seem that there could be enough personal wealth to see a primary owner emerge.

 

The rule blows a hole in my theory about Rogers' diversification. However, it brings me back to my original question. What's in it for Rogers? If it awfully expensive dabbling minus some intent. Another question: do any of you remember if the Bills sought this out, or did Rogers approach Wilson/Brandon?

I dont know if it adds to it or not or shows the Bills initiated this series, but Ralphs niece Mary Owen is on the NFL's international committee. Also heard rumors Ralph has always been interested in Toronto. If I were to guess whats in it for Rogers, I would say a future business partnership with the next owner of the Bills, which IMO has already been decided. Maybe a naming rights deal or something.

Edited May 29, 2012 by TheTruthHurts

[PromoTheRobot]

Rumors? Brandon says it in every interview.

 

PTR

[papazoid]

whats in it for Rogers Communications ?....just to name a few.....

 

#1- Branding - Consumers are always willing to buy products they know and trust. A strong, well defined brand, gives you a competitive advantage in the market. It allows you to charge more for your product, knowing that consumers will remain loyal, and buy it at the higher cost. co-branding with the NFL is a no-brainer.

 

#2- Advertising - the toronto sports pages and airwaves are filled with content mentioning Rogers Communication with anything associated with the Buffalo Bills....most of it at no cost to rogers.

 

#3- Future Ownership - they are in the business owning of sports properties. at minimum, i'm quite sure they will be active bidders when the team comes up for sale. who knows, they may already enjoy a right of first refusal to match any and all offers.

[8-8 Forever?]

I've been reading the posts on TBD about the expected expansion of the Bills/Rogers deal. While there's been a lot of debate among TBD fans about what this extensions means for the Bills and the franchise's future in Buffalo, there's virtually no discussion about Rogers' motivation. Even this article from canoe.ca doesn't really delve into the Rogers side of things. The last paragraph of the article mentions that Rogers recently acquired co-controlling shares of two sport franchises: "As well, pending final approval, Rogers Communications bought a co-controlling share of the NHL's Toronto Maple Leafs and NBA's Toronto Raptors, along with Bell Canada."

 

My question: is Rogers looking to diversify its entertainment portfolio and doing some live, regular-season-game market testing, i.e. the "Bills/Toronto series? The games enable it to assess demand for NFL product in Toronto/southern Ontario and gauge WNY- and US-based Bills fan reaction to the game day experience at its facility vs. the Ralph. (My hope is that they are getting a clue that there will not be tens of thousands of fans who will follow the franchise to Toronto. I won't.) Yeah, its a lot of money for market research, but if you have to justify dropping upwards of $1B US to your shareholders to acquire an NFL franchise, you'd better have your data ready. Two five-year series at $75M each--and this newest is going to be less than that, supposedly--is only about 10% of the eventual purchase price for this franchise. That's right in line with standard practice.

 

If Rogers is in an acquisitive mode, it knows that an NFL franchise will make it far more than the Raptors or Maple Leafs will ever make. The value of the TV deal alone would add a healthy infusion of cash to its operations.

 

And here's the kicker: if a stadium deal goes through, and the state and its taxpayers pay the bill for a nice renovation, the smart move would be to keep the franchise in Buffalo where there's a built-in fan base that draws from all over the region, including Toronto and So. Ontario. Rogers could provide luxury coaches to transport corporate box owners to the Ralph and still make a killing. Moving the team to Toronto, where the marketing team would have to a) fight to get the Toronto and Ont. fans to attend in profitable numbers, and b) overcome hoards of the CFL-for Canada ilk who will suddenly become fervent Hamilton Ti-Cats fans, would be a monumental blunder.

 

It would be great to see Pegula get the team. But if he doesn't, don't assume that a Rogers purchase would mean a slam-dunk move north. They are clearly not engaged in the Bills/Toronto Series to make money hand over fist. If this is a portfolio move, it could be the best thing for the Buffalo Bills. Lots of foreign companies own assets in the States, and they don't change the name or location. Profit is profit, and we're all proving that the Bills are a viable, profitable NFL product--even with more than a decade of struggle.

 

Do you really care if the team is owned by an old dude in Detroit or a monolithic media/entertainment company in Toronto? I don't. As long as this franchise stays in Buffalo, I'm good.

 

I'd be interested in your perspective on what kind of skin Rogers has in this game.

 

GO BILLS!!

 

Unless Ralph is lying, his will dictates in no uncertain terms that the team is to be auctioned to the highest bidder. Period. So $$ will decide this in the end. And whoever wins the bidding can do whatever he or she wants with the franchise. It is that simple. It is good that Rogers is test marketing the Bills in Toronto. By the time Ralph is gone, there will be good info on how the Bills brand plays in Toronto. One thing (and maybe the only thing) in favor of the Bills staying in WNY would be the existence of a refurbished stadium with a long term non cancelable lease tying the Bills to it. I don't think fan base matters nearly as much as the cut of the TV revenue pie and luxury box sales.

Bills ticket prices are the lowest in the league, that is not in favor of the team staying at the Ralph. NFL is a TV game and the money is in the TV deal. Plus the other owners would certainly rather have a franchise in L.A. than in WNY (higher ticket prices, the team will probably be awesome in a couple years so the boxes will sell out at 5x what they don't sell for at the Ralph). I think its 50/50 the Bills stay after Ralph is gone. Rogers will make a play for them for Toronto, someone will try for L.A.. Those are two of the continents biggest TV markets. Ralph will do everything he can while alive to tie them to the Ralph via the lease. Not sure how it will all shake out.

[cody]

What's in it for Rogers?

The same that is in it for Rogers when they host anything.

Rogers pays the Bills to have a game in their stadium. People go to the game any pay Rogers.

Why does Rogers have UFC matches?

Why does Rogers have Sesame Street Live?

 

Unless Ralph is lying, his will dictates in no uncertain terms that the team is to be auctioned to the highest bidder. Period.

 

Please provide a source for this.

I have heard it. I have tried to verify it and cannot.

[Rivermont Mike]

What's in it for Rogers?

The same that is in it for Rogers when they host anything.

Rogers pays the Bills to have a game in their stadium. People go to the game any pay Rogers.

Why does Rogers have UFC matches?

Why does Rogers have Sesame Street Live?

 

 

 

Please provide a source for this.

I have heard it. I have tried to verify it and cannot.

 

Rogers paid approximately $75 million for the last deal and will pay a smaller amount for this deal. The article I cited indicated that the Bills' take on each game was twice what it would make in revenue at a home game in the Ralph--and Rogers lost its shirt for the large part of the Bills/Toronto Series. They're not dumb, and they are not going to pay double the revenue projection for a home game just because they're Rogers. That's why I asked the question in the first place. Your examples of UFC and Sesame Street don't hold up. Rogers is not paying $11M+ to host a UFC match or a Sesame Street live show.

[RealityCheck]

What's in it for Rogers?

The same that is in it for Rogers when they host anything.

Rogers pays the Bills to have a game in their stadium. People go to the game any pay Rogers.

Why does Rogers have UFC matches?

Why does Rogers have Sesame Street Live?

 

 

 

Please provide a source for this.

I have heard it. I have tried to verify it and cannot.

Exactly. This is another opportunity to make money. Some will of course believe that there is more to it than that, which of course there is not.

[dancing_joker]

What's in it for Rogers? Simple - they won't have to pay a relocation fee when they buy the Bills and move them to Toronto after Ralph dies. They can claim that Toronto is in the Bills market since the Bills play home games there, thus saving them hundreds of millions of dollars.

[Lurker]

What's in it for Rogers? Simple - they won't have to pay a relocation fee when they buy the Bills and move them to Toronto after Ralph dies. They can claim that Toronto is in the Bills market since the Bills play home games there, thus saving them hundreds of millions of dollars.

To reiterate, corporations can not own franchises.

 

I'd be interested in your perspective on what kind of skin Rogers has in this game.

Straight from the Horse's Ass (in the case of Steve Simmons):

 

http://www.torontosun.com/sports/columnists/steve_simmons/2010/08/18/15069316.html

 

"Ted Rogers didn't invest in the Bills In Toronto series to lose money, and were the great man alive today, he would probably be astonished by how much this has ended up costing his company.

 

Rogers was convinced by the people selling this to him - primarily his right-hand man Phil Lind - that Toronto would pay ANYTHING for NFL football and when Rogers heard this, he believed a money-making venture was on the way."

[Billsrhody]

Very interesting post. I could absolutely see Roger's becoming a huge player for the bills after Ralph passes (if he passes). Hopefully by the time that happens, the bills have been a solid contender for several years and the smart money is to keep them in WNY.

[Fingon]

Very interesting post. I could absolutely see Roger's becoming a huge player for the bills after Ralph passes (if he passes). Hopefully by the time that happens, the bills have been a solid contender for several years and the smart money is to keep them in WNY.

As has been said many times in this thread, corporations cannot own NFL teams.

[Fan in San Diego]

Correct, and there has to be an individual who is a majority owner.

 

What if there is a corporation where one person owns more than 50% of the stock? Just for liability reasons you don't want to hold title to the team as a personal asset. You want a corp. to hold title.