The Agenda with Steve Paikin (Audio) - How Rogers Took Over Toronto Sports

Episode Date: October 9, 2024

What do the following Toronto sports teams have in common: the hockey Leafs, the basketball Raptors, baseball's Blue Jays, soccer's Toronto FC, hockey's Marlies, and the football Argonauts? Answer: Rogers now owns them all. What does that mean for the communications juggernaut, and more importantly, for those of us who expend too much emotional energy cheering for those teams? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Quick now, what do the following Toronto sports teams have in common? The hockey Leafs, the basketball Raptors, baseball's Blue Jays, soccer's Toronto FC, hockey's Marlies, and the football Argonauts? Answer, Rogers now owns them all. What does that mean for the communications juggernaut, and more importantly for those of us who expend too much emotional energy cheering for those teams. Let's find out from Alexandra Pasadsky. She is author of Rogers vs. Rogers, the battle for control of Canada's telecom empire.

She's also a financial and cybercrime reporter with the Globe and Mail. Barbara Schechter, senior business correspondent at the Financial Post. And Tim Dewhurst, he's a professor of marketing and public policy in the Gordon S. Lang School of Business and Economics at the University of Guelph and definitely wins the prize for having the most difficulty getting here today. That's a long haul.

Go train, TDC train, and here you are. Brilliant. Thank you, Tim. And great to have you guys here as well. Appreciate you being here. Sheldon, graphic off the top if you would please because we want to remind everybody here of what Rogers did not too long ago

to become the undisputed kings of the Toronto sports scene. Here we go. They spent $4.7 billion to buy out Bell's 37.5% stake in Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment. They now own 75% of MLSC and that of course means Leafs, Raptors, Toronto FC, Argonauts, Marlies, don't forget Scotiabank Arena, NBA TV and they already own the Blue Jays and the Rogers Center. So they own everything basically. Okay Alexandra start us off tell us why

this deal made sense for Rogers. Well, as you mentioned, since they already own the Blue Jays, they're now essentially consolidating their ownership position in all of the city's most valuable sports franchises. And so what that could mean is potentially in the future they could spin those properties out through an IPO and then perhaps actually see the value of some of those sports teams reflected in their own stock price. Barbara, what would you add to that about why this makes sense for Rogers? Well, that was a pretty complete answer. I think that is why they went for it.

They've owned the Toronto Blue Jays though for some 20 plus years and I think that is really key. They never really feel that they got recognition for owning that sports franchise in their share price and doing this deal will, as Alex said, consolidate those teams and sort of hopefully surface that value. So at the end of the day, it's about improving the share price of Rogers. Well, I think everything Rogers does, bottom line, is probably about improving their share price.

I'm not saying that critically. I'm saying that that's, it's not a love of hockey or love of basketball or whatever. Well, I think it's, they clearly showed that they had some interest in sports in 2000, and it's a way of, they've just sort of struggled to get recognition for that. So you don't want to own something that is not being recognized. You want sort of the sum to be worth, you know, at least the parts. Gotcha. Tim, how about you?

Well, I mean, with this deal, they'll have a sports monopoly on with Toronto, but then also it's important to keep in mind that the Toronto Blue Jays and the Toronto Raptors are Canada's only representation in those professional sport leagues. So the region is actually the entire country with those particular teams. I think one other thing is that there's been escalating broadcast deals, and I think they're assuming with this deal that it's going to continue to escalate in terms of the financial sort of decision making

behind this deal. We do have to remember that. I mean, we sometimes get tunnel vision sitting here in the province of Ontario that there are lots of Blue Jays fans in British Columbia and when the Blue Jays are in Seattle they descend on the place and they make Seattle a home game for the Toronto Blue Jays. So yeah their region is not Toronto and environs it's the whole country isn't it? It's very true I've been one of those fans that's actually seen a game in

Seattle when Toronto was playing. And it's kind of amusing to see because Seattle, if their pitcher's throwing to first base to hold a runner, the crowd starts booing the Seattle team. So it's a bit of a home game for the Blue Jays. Very much so. Even when it's in a different country. That's really quite funny.

OK, other side of the coin. Obviously, Rogers had a willing partner in Bell which needed to sell. It's 37.5% stake of MLSC. Why did they, Bell, do that? Yeah, so need is a strong word, but they certainly were incentivized to sell because of course Bell has a lot of debt they've borrowed in order to build out 5G, build out fiber in their copper territory. And so they have a lot of debt on the balance sheet and doing this allows

them to pay down some of that debt in a time when we have still elevated interest rates. And the alternative, which is cutting the dividend, is simply not an option for Bell because they're so widely held as a dividend stock. Can I get you on that Barbara? Was Bell ever really in danger of reducing the dividend in order to deal with its other financial issues? Well, they did get busted down to just I think a notch above junk status on some of their bonds. So that's pretty serious for a corporation.

And so I think I'm not sure how quickly the dividend would have been in danger, but that's not a good sign. And they have been making a habit of getting rid of some of their non-core assets. So this fits with that, the timing. Rogers probably saw that, and the timing was good. Tim, the bail angle, what do you think? I agree with what's just been said.

It was certainly a way to deal with accumulating debt. And actually, it ended up being a very good investment because it was under a billion in terms of when they first had an ownership stake in Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment and now getting a 4.7 billion, there's been a pretty nice return on that. No kidding. Do we know, well let me start it this way,

these were two intensely competing against one another entities, which somehow, I guess, were somewhat strange bedfellows co-owning in equal measure one of the crown jewels in all of professional sports, a few of the crown jewels in all of professional sports. Do we know how amicably, Alexandra, the decision to enter negotiations and split up how those negotiations went? What we do know is that the talks have been kind of ongoing for some time, so this has been in the making for months, but it's all happening, you know, in closed rooms, so we don't really know how amicable. I've also often wondered what those conversations around the MLSCE boardroom table look like because you know we've got Bell, we've got

Rogers, and then of course we've also got Larry Tenenbaum owning a stake of MLSCE and one of the things that I had heard from sources in reporting my book was that Edward and Larry famously do not get along. Hang on, Edward Rogers, the boss, the big guy, and Larry Tanabob, you say famously don't get along. That is what I have been told is that, you know, they often had disagreements around the boardroom. Okay, so just we're going to remember all the details here.

Bell and MLSC own 75% of the team of the outfit MLSC. Larry Tanabob owned 25%. And none of the three partners particularly liked the arrangement or each other? Well, I think in the shareholders arrangement that they had crafted in 2012 when that partnership came together, the three parties you just mentioned, they did have an agreement where Rogers and Bell, BCE,

had to be in agreement for anything to move forward. So that sounds good in theory, but also that means things can't move forward if those two didn't agree. So it was an odd boardroom for sure, the way it was structured. So again, it is behind closed doors. We don't know exactly how it looked, but a lot was made of Larry Tannenbaum going outside the partnership to bring in the WNBA, the women's team, did not happen through MLSE. So the the entity that Rogers and Bell are part of. So it definitely seemed like it wasn't the smoothest of boardrooms. That's interesting. We have to remember

that as well. That's right. Larry Tannenbaum on his own brought the Women's National Basketball Association team to Toronto. What are they called, the Scepters? No, no, that's the hockey team. What's the WNBA team going to be called? Maybe they haven't got a name yet. Or do they? If anybody in the control room remembers,

I don't remember right now. Anyways, what does that tell you about how amicably these three elements got on? Well, it was a strange arrangement for sure. Certainly with Rogers now having a 75% stake. And then my understanding is that also they, within two years, have the opportunity to buy out Larry Tannebaum's controlling interests.

So they definitely are seeking to push him out. And he's been very much the face with a lot of decision making with Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment and certainly it is an opportunity for Rodgers and Edward Rodgers in particular to exert a lot of control. I am told by my good friends in the control room that we are not all losing our minds out here or forgetful. They haven't got a name yet for the WNBA team which is why we can't think of it. Good. Okay. Rogers just bought Shaw for 20 billion plus. That's a lot of money. Why did they think that they could afford to spend almost another five

billion buying out Bell? Well, I think the opportunity presented itself and they've been pretty clear with the market that they are not gonna sort of, you know, ram more debt down the the throats of shareholders they're going to sell down some of the acquired stake to private investors. We don't know a lot about those. There's a little reporting on that but ultimately they may only own 51% and that sale to those or you know bringing in some outside private investors who I'm told may have shares but not votes will sort of make sure that Rogers does not take on extraordinary debt and may

in fact pay for this buyout of the stake in MLS. Private outside investors means what exactly? That's what we're trying to find out but I think people that would like to put money forward to have a piece of this but don't necessarily want to be sort of in that boardroom scenario where they're making decisions they want a piece so they are the money men. And my understanding is that the longer that it takes for them to get approval because of course this deal requires the approval of regulators to regulators in particular the longer it takes for them to get approval because of course this deal requires the approval of regulators, two regulators in particular, the longer it takes for them

to get that approval the more of MLSC Rogers will get to hold on to because they're you know busy paying down debt on the Shaw deal currently and they're selling some of their non-core assets like real estate holdings and so if they have more time then they won't necessarily have to sell off as much of MLSC. Can you just follow up on that the the notion that two different Canadian regulators I gather the Competition Bureau and the CRTC, Radio Television Telecommunications Commission or whatever they say what they call it still. The Canadian Radio Television Telecommunications Commission. Right. The fact that they have to give the good housekeeping seal of approval to this deal, why?

Why do they have, what's their interest in this? So the CRTC has the telecom and broadcasting regulator. They have to approve it because of the transfer of broadcasting licenses. And then the competition bureau basically has to convince itself that there's not going to be a lessening of competition. Anyone who's followed the Roger Shaw deal will know that the Competition Bureau

actually attempted to block that merger. They had claimed that it would lead to a lessening of competition and they lost that case in front of the Competition Tribunal. So we do know that we have a feisty Competition Bureau. I don't know whether that means they're gonna challenge this merger or not. Well let me ask Tim that. Do you have any reason to believe as you look at this thing that either of those two entities might put thumbs down on this? I don't anticipate that they will, but I think they should give it very careful scrutiny and careful consideration just because we've seen in Canada a lot of instances where there's

been concerns about the market concentration power. The grocery sector is one area that's gotten a lot of attention. Ticketmaster is also another area in the entertainment sector that's got a lot of attention and certainly there is concern because not only is Rogers essentially getting a monopoly on sports in Toronto but they also are the owner of Sportsnet and And so there's also the issue of broadcasting rights with all those sport teams. Having said that, Barbara, Rogers

is saying all the right things at this stage, namely that, oh, of course we're not going to shut out TSN, which would be their bell rival. Of course we're going to sell them the rights to broadcast Leaf games or Raptors games if they come forward with a good offer. So does the Competition Bureau or the CRTC have a dog in this hunt? I've made predictions on such things before and it's kind of like Ted Rogers' record on politics,

which we talked about earlier. I haven't always made the right call so I don't want to try to get in front of that because it really depends. I mean, it is a feisty commissioner competition. Sometimes he picks a fight that people don't expect him to pick. And you did point out that they've tried to do the right things by saying that the broadcast rights for 20 years will be available to Bell. So we really won't know until we know and we were surprised some people were surprised at the the Roger Shaw challenge and especially how long

it went on after they came up with a solution to create more competition in wireless. Gotcha. Okay let's talk basketball for a second here. Does anybody remember what the Raptors cost 30 years ago? Remember the number? I think you do. I just so happen to have looked it up. I think it was 1994 as an expansion team. Expansion franchise, that's right, was worth $125 million for the original ownership group to buy into the NBA. $125 million.

Now based on the buyout of what Rogers just paid for 37.5% of the NBA franchise here in Toronto, do you know what the Raptors are worth now? From $125 million to $4 billion. And apparently the league is about to charge $5 billion for new potential expansion franchises in Vegas and Seattle. We used to have an expression in television, it's a license to print money. Is it? Well it certainly seems that way even if you look at the MLSE deal now when teachers, the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan sold out in 2012 I was speaking to someone

who was around in those days, talking about a cocktail party in which teachers was asked, why are you selling? And they said, oh, we think that asset's tapped out. They've made a lot of money, but I think that was around a billion dollars that they sold their 75, or it was more than 75% stake for, I think, at that time.

So yeah, these things have definitely gone up in value. I've asked people about that, like why are these teams going for record amounts? And there seem to be the things that are said are digital rights. There's so many, you know, your phone and everywhere where they can sort of, it's not just buying a ticket anymore or, you know, some beer at the game. Like there are so many different sort of avenues beyond even the the broadcasting rights that were available you know and around and being talked about in 2012. There are all kinds of new outlets. There's the prestige of owning a team that's sort of always been the case but it seems to

have gotten a bigger multiple in some of these deals recently and maybe some some other folks can offer some other reasons why they think these things are appreciating and value so much. The one that I'll add is just that sports is still one of the things that you need to watch live, right? And so those broadcasting rights are still really, really valuable, whereas things like TV shows, like we're streaming that all now. And so that's really hit the cable TV model.

What would you call a business, Tim, that is worth $125 million one day and $4 billion a few decades later? Very successful. No kidding. Yeah, that's pretty good. It means the buyout price for MLSC is $12.5SE is $12.5 billion. $12.5 billion. Where does that number put MLSE

in the kind of pantheon of sports ownership groups around North America? Pretty much at the top. And so, yeah, just, I mean, especially considering the collection of teams that are involved, it pretty much puts it at the top. Do you have a view on why the stuff seems to be? I always have been told by people in this business,

you've got to make a distinction between how much money the teams make as profit themselves through operations versus the value of the franchise itself. I've been told by so many people over the years, our teams actually don't make that much money and can lose a lot of money and Toronto FC the soccer team is losing dozens of millions of dollars a year right now and yet the value of the franchises themselves goes up all the time. Can you explain that? Well I can make an attempt. The Blue Jays apparently also have been losing money over the last number of years, and Rogers has continued to fund them.

So I think that the teams themselves, a lot of times, it's the player salaries, from my understanding, that make the losses, that lead to the losses, because they have to pay so much to the players. But that you can look at the team itself, like the baseball team or the soccer team, and then you look at all the surrounding contributions from the broadcast rights from, I understand there's even money in fantasy sports, please.

So if you isolate just the team and how much it costs to run and pay the players, that can be losing money, but the whole franchise, if you call it that, all the ancillary revenues, it actually may not be losing money. But on things like, I know Rogers doesn't break out the Blue Jays, so you don't see really what the numbers are, but you see what some of the executives have talked about publicly about losing money since the pandemic, and the cost of player salaries. So you do have some sort of insights into that. But I think that might be part of it, is it's beyond just the team and the players? Well, I remember Paul Beeston,

who was I guess the first ever employee of the Toronto Blue Jays, who was a chartered accountant in his real life, saying, yeah, we made $2 million last year for the Blue Jays. Now, with moving a couple of periods and commas and so on, I can make that look like a $2 million loss. So this kind of stuff is somewhat flexible here, I gather.

Tell me this, Alex. The fact that all of the revenue comes in in Canadian dollars, but the fact that they have to pay all the players in American dollars, you would think that would be a huge problem for a Canadian-based team. It does not seem to be. Why not? I mean, that is a great question.

But as Barb pointed out, we don't see the breakout of how the Blue Jays are doing. So it would be really interesting if they do end up putting all these assets together into one sort of sports empire and spin it out. Then maybe we could actually kind of get a look under the hood and see exactly what's happening there and why. Yeah.

Tim, you got something on that? Sure. I mean, the escalating value of a lot of these teams is a reflection of escalating broadcast deals. And so it's become more and more competitive, where now you have Amazon Prime, Apple, and a lot of these streaming platforms that have entered into broadcast deals.

And even Netflix now has a deal with the NFL to broadcast two games on Christmas Day. And so these kind of deals generate a lot of revenue. And then the additional thing has been there's been more and more expansion teams in a lot of the professional leagues. And so the Raptors, when there's an expansion fee of up to $5 billion as you presented earlier, the Raptors will get a cut of that.

They'll get 1.30th or 1.31st or whatever it is. Precisely. Of that money. Fabulous. OK. Barbara, how about this? We need to put this deal into some kind of historical context here.

Once upon a time, I used to work for Ted Rogers, 40 plus years ago. And he was a telecommunications guy back then, and that was it. Telecommunications, cable TV, that's the business he was in. Rogers is now a sports behemoth. In terms of helping us understand the arc of the company better, paint us a picture.

Well, I mean, I think the thing for me that sort of encapsulates that is a time I went to the Skybox, I think it was called then, the corporate box that Rogers had at what was then the Skydome probably. So you can see what the era was. I think it was probably shortly after they bought 100% of the Jays, which was in 2004. And it was one of the rare times I was actually at the game because my dad had tickets he wasn't using and so I was invited to the Rogers box because Ted

was going to be there. So I went up and my recollection is a lot of the Rogers executives were clearly into sports and they would sit in the seats at the front the entire game and if you want to talk to them you'd have to go sit down with them and and look at the field but the whole time I was in the box Ted had his back to the game and and to the field and the time he really lit up was when he sort of pulled which I'm not sure if this was a prototype or just an early smartphone pulled it out of his pocket and he was talking about how you're gonna be watching TV shows on this like he was very rooted still in you know cable

carries television to your home. How many years ago was this? I can't date it but it was after... Probably 20. It was after 2004 and it was probably somewhere in the mids somewhere around around there, like maybe 2007. And he was saying, you know, you're gonna be watching TV shows on this, and I'm like, okay, Ted, you know, kind of like, and all the entertainment was gonna be, you know, it wasn't just gonna come in through the cable into your home on your television.

And what I find interesting about that and the evolution is that he wasn't wrong, but also the sort of application of all the digital you know the way sports has transformed and the way people are constantly on their phones you know other playing fantasy sports or looking at the scores or you know following along and all the streaming that's come from that so they already owned the J's I don't know if they knew what it was going to become or they could predict they didn't own any of the other teams through Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment at that time because it would have been pre-2012. And yeah, so I think that's been the evolution.

He had the idea and he saw how it fit even though he wasn't really paying attention to what the content was behind him. I had one of those conversations with him once as well, where he was sitting, this is 40 years ago, he's sitting down at a lunch table trying to explain what fiber optic cable was to me, which of course I had no clue about, but he sure did, he sure figured that one out. Okay, you've written a book on this company,

talk to us about the arc of its history, leading it to become a sports behemoth today. Yeah, so I love the anecdote that Barbara just told us, because the really fascinating thing about Ted was when Ted bought the Blue Jays He saw the value of the Blue Jays before he really even understood the rules of baseball So one of the stories that I was told was that at one point He was flying to the press conference with his doctor. Dr. Bernie Gostovitz or dr. G as he's known and He asks dr. G,

can you explain the rules to me? And so Dr. G draws a diagram and he's explaining to him on the flight how baseball works, and then he gets up to the podium and then it's like he's been following the game his whole life because he was just such a bright person. So yeah, so after they bought the Blue Jays, well they bought an 80% stake at first

and then four years later, that was in 2000, four years later they bought the remaining 20%. They ended up buying the Sky Dome for $25 million, basically the price of a standalone house in Toronto these days. And then- Can you imagine, the dome was what, a billion dollars to build?

Maybe 650 million, I might be exaggerating, but anyway, and he bought it for 25 million. I might be exaggerating a bit. Anyway, and he bought it for 25 million. 25, and then he put another 25 million in for renovations. And then it wasn't until 2011 when Nadir Mohammed was the CEO that Rogers ended up buying with Bell a stake in MLSC that the Ontario Teacher's Pension Plan was divesting.

And we saw an article in Toronto Life quite a few years ago now that actually said that at that time Edward and presumably also his sister Melinda were disappointed because they wanted Rogers to get the entire stake but Nadir Muhammad at that time he didn't want to shell out the you know money that teachers was asking for it. This may be an odd question Tim but you know we are accustomed to you think of the great owners in sports, George Steinbrenner, the New York Yankees.

I don't say great because he had any success, but Harold Ballard at least was a hockey fan. He loved hockey, he went to all the games, he cared about hockey. His name's on the Stanley Cup from the 67 Leafs. Ted Rogers clearly was not a sports fan. I don't know that Edward Rogers is much of a sports fan, actually. I don't know that he cares that much about it.

Does that matter? Well, I guess it matters in that he's going to now have control of decision-making of who the president of operations for the various teams are. And so, you know, I don't know how much it matters per se, but he's still very important in decision making of who will be making the important decisions for each of the various teams. Alexander, does it matter if the person who holds the strings

actually doesn't know the difference between a home runner and a stolen base? I mean, I think my understanding is that Edward is certainly more of a sports fan than his father was. I'm not saying much. It's not. He does go to games. I mean, I think my understanding is that Edward is certainly more of a sports fan than his father was. I'm not saying much. It's not.

He does go to games. He is the chairman of the Blue Jays. When the Raptors won the NBA Championships, he did celebrate by buying NBA championship rings for all the Rogers board members. So it seems that he is at least somewhat engaged in sports. I think from the fan's perspective, fans would love it if he were very excited about sports because they want to see MLSC shelling out for the salaries for the players that are needed

in order to win, essentially. Let me pick up on that angle here, because if you go to a Los Angeles Clippers basketball game in LA, Steve Bulmer is on the microphone. He is like, he's jacked. He is talking to the fans. He is out there. Mark Cuban, Dallas Mavericks, same thing.

He is a presence at the game. There are a lot of owners like that in other sports. Edward Rogers is a very introverted guy who is not gonna be giving high fives to fans as he runs up the steps to the seats. Does that matter? Well, I think what will matter most is whether they're willing to sort of, you know, pay the salaries and do all that kind of thing that you talked about. And I think they've

shown that they are willing to do that, that even though they're, you know, a for-profit business, you know, they've been allowing the Jays, which they have full control over, to apparently pay out big salaries and lose money. So I think the key thing for the teams, and again, I come at this from not a sports person, I think the important thing is that they're going to get the funding because whoever you give it to, I think they're a bit hamstrung in sports from the little I understand about it. If they can't, you know, outbid others for the players and things like that, Tim can probably answer this better.

Well, to the small tiny extent that I follow baseball, which is to say I spend way too much time on it, the Blue Jays are the fourth highest paid team in Major League Baseball out of the 30 teams. Fourth highest. And they came last this year. So payroll has not been the problem. Tim. Well, they were last in their division.

The Chicago White Sox were worse, even worse. But it was very disappointing with the year-end press conference that they had where upper management, Shapiro and Atkins, were speaking to the media and fans about the season that was. And what was very disappointing is they seemed quite tone deaf about the fans' frustration of where, you know, going into this season, they were very much with ambition of making the playoffs and, you know, being very competitive.

But this year, after the season, they said, we hope to play meaningful September baseball. They weren't even with the ambition next year of trying to make the playoffs. They just want to be playing meaningful baseball in September while the regular season is still going on. So. Does that sound to you like they've lowered the bar on the objective?

Very much so. And as a fan, personally as a fan of the Blue Jays, that was very disappointing to hear that we seemingly have lowered the bar of what the ambition and what they're trying to achieve. But let's just understand this, because, agreed, the sports fans want to know, now that there's one clear owner, and we don't have this sort of three-headed horse

of division of ownership anymore, there's one clear owner of every Toronto sports team, does that theoretically make it easier to make decisions and therefore, if you make the right decisions, end up with better teams? That's what we want to know. Well, I think there will be more efficiency in terms of the boardroom, the fact that there aren't sort of the different competing interests.

But no, I don't think that translates into necessarily a winning team. We look at the Blue Jays as an example of where they haven't had much success in recent years. Yeah certainly not a guarantee and then the concern too is that if you have a sports monopoly in Toronto I mean typically with a monopoly you see escalating prices. So the fan experience is likely to be diminished where you have higher prices, less value I guess in going to see a live game. And also with monopolies often you see there's less incentive to innovate when there isn't when there's lacking competition.

And so as long as the Toronto Maple Leafs are the number one team, according to Forbes, in terms of valuation in the NHL, and they have escalated prices and revenue coming in, there isn't really incredible pressure to necessarily win the Stanley Cup. That's Alexander. You're going to get the last word on this, and that's what I need to know. Now that the Toronto Maple Leafs are owned by one corporation, as opposed to what they had in the past, does that guarantee we will have a Stanley Cup parade down Bay

Street next June? Definitely not. It doesn't guarantee that? There's no guarantee. So disappointing. I mean, isn't that why we're doing this deal in the first place? So we get a Stanley Cup parade in June? Well, I think we'd all love one, but I don't know that that's necessarily the primary motivation

here. I don't know if the people in Ottawa or don't know that that's necessarily the primary motivation here. I don't know if the people in Ottawa or Windsor would love that as much as we would here. They may be cheering for other teams. Anyways, gang, thanks so much for coming from near and far to join us today. Barbara Schechter, Senior Business Correspondent, Financial Post, and Tim Dewhurst from the University of Guelph and Alexandra Posadsky. Canada, boy, that was a great book. I want to remember, we had you in for that.

Rogers versus Rogers, the battle for control of Canada's telecom empire. Great to have you all here at TVO tonight. Thank you. Thanks very much. Thank you.