Sale Of Canadiens Is Bad News For Fans

Question: How does a buyer justify paying top dollar for a business that is already at the top end of it's revenue arc?

The Montreal Canadiens are generating about as much profit as they can, under the present circumstances and there's a distinct possibility that team revenues will stabilize or diminish, given the team's on-ice performance and the sluggish economy.

How much more than $4.50 can you expect fans to pay for a bottle of water?

Corporate boxes are threatened by shareholder demands for frugality and the government's own agencies (Hydro Quebec, Loto Quebec.) have recently come under fire for owning these elitist loges, used mostly by senior management and their families.
While ticket prices can rise nominally, any large increase (which would still be paid by loyal fans) would lead to a sullying of the stellar reputation of the team, a key ingredient in the Canadiens financial success. The advertising world and it's revenues are also on a downward track.

So if a new owner pays Gillett top dollar for the team, where will he find revenues to make the deal profitable?

If the selling price is as high as is rumoured, the new owner will make no more than by putting his money into a bank certificate of deposit.

Today's Globe And Mail had a story that hints at the ominous possibility that the team, in a bid to raise revenues, might create a private cable network to telecast Canadiens games, one that would charge users a fee.
The private network route hasn't been largely successful in other markets, (it almost ruined the Chicago Blackhawks) but just might work in Quebec.

If the team could sell subscriptions to private residences and compliment it by selling more expensive subscriptions to bars and restaurants, it's conceivable that the team could raise revenues by an incredible $100-$150 million dollars!

Let's do the math;
Start with a reasonable subscription fee of a $100 a year. Divided into 12 monthly payments, it'd be less that 10 bucks a month and works out to about $1.15 a game, a bargain to any real hockey fan and well within the budget of most Quebeckers.
It isn't inconceivable that the team could sell a million subscriptions to a hockey-mad province, likely more. There's also a large and loyal Canadiens fan base across North America, people who'd also be willing to pay.
This could bring in at least 100 million dollars.

Because of the disappearance of public broadcast, bars and restaurants would jump to carry the Canadiens games. They'd be charged much higher fees, perhaps up to $10,000 a year, which may seem high, but not unreasonable. It works out to about $100 a game, which is a real bargain, if it successfully fills empty restaurant and bar seats. Failing to buy a subscription would put a these business' in a very dis-favourable competitive position.
With just 5,000 bars across the province participating, it could bring in an additional 50 million dollars to the club.
Games could also be offered on a pay-per-view basis to hotels and private homes and at say, $7.95 a pop.

Of course the team would have to let the RDS contract expire and lose the related revenue, but would more than make up the money by continuing to sell TV ads on it's own broadcast. By having it's own network the Canadiens could also fill the air with Canadiens related programming twelve months a year and that would serve to strengthen the brand and increase revenues.

It's hard to figure out the effect of running a private network (aside from the subscription fee,) not knowing the value of the RDS contract, the production costs and the related ad revenue, but it must be positive otherwise RDS wouldn't pay for the rights.

The Canadiens could also set up a ticket reselling site, a la Ticketmaster's "TicketsNow" which is basically a scalping site. They could demand fees for transferring season tickets or impose annual seat license fees on season tickets.

All in all, the sale of the Canadiens doesn't auger well for fans.

The very best scenario is that the team be purchased by the Province of Quebec's pension arm, the Caisse de Depot, which would be satisfied with making a 10% return on it's investment, something no entrepreneur would accept.

Quebec News of the Weird- Volume 02

College Student Needs Economic Lessons

The Concordia University student union in Montreal, is reeling from a scandal that saw a lot of money disappear from it's treasury.
The $500,000 deficit occurred between 2005 and 2007 and was blamed on a former accountant.
According to VP finance Andre Leroy;

"..the deficit was not a loss, but rather consisted mostly of unpaid bills and taxes. What happens is that you go into the next year with liabilities,... stuff you still have to pay off."

Huh? Somebody better repeat 'Accounting 101.'

Gatineau Father's Punishment is Reversed by Court
A divorced father who had custody of his 12 year old daughter, refused her permission to go on a year-end school trip, because she had been surfing forbidden web-sites on the Internet.
The girl, along with the non-custodial mother, sued the father in court and won the right for the girl to go on the trip.
The judgement was upheld on appeal. Link

Coalition contre la Répression et les Abus Policiers

The acronym of a new organization that opposes Montreal Police 'abuse' is,
wait for it......;

C.R.A.P.

It's website address in www.lacrap.org/

Alleged Terrorist Just Exercising Free Speech

Unable to come up with a more viable defence, Said Namouh, a Moroccan immigrant charged with promoting terrorism, claimed he was just exercising his right to free speech, when he called for people to hurt other people in the name of religious conviction.
The judge seemed wholly unimpressed. Link

TV Show Overloads Telephone System

Last Sunday, a record 2.8 million people watched the the finale of the Quebec television show, "Star Acadamie"(a Quebec version of American Idol.) To put the number of viewers in perspective, the American Idol finale in 2006, had 36 million viewers, which meant that about 1 out of every 9 Americans was watching. The Star Acadamie finale was so popular, that about 1 out of every 2½ Quebeckers watched the show. The related telephone voting was so heavy that it overloaded the telephone system in many areas throughout the province. In some places there was even a delay for 9-1-1 service.

Gaspe Newspaper Runs Out Of News
I guess not much must be happening in the Gaspé village of Matane. This was front page in in the local newspaper, Voix de Matane.

"Le prix du litre d'essence ordinaire a diminué d'un cent, passant de 93,4 cents à 92,4 cents, ici à la station-service Esso Le Cristal, sur l'avenue du Phare Ouest"

"A liter of regular gas went down by one cent to 92.4 cents, from 93.4, here at the `Esso Le Cristal gas station on Phare avenue, West.

Crime & Punishment-The Canadian Way

Alice English, a 55-year-old grandmother who worked as a guard in Montreal's Bordeaux jail was convicted last May for smuggling drugs into the prison.

After her arrest, in a four hour interview with Quebec police, she gave a very detailed account the crime. She admitted that she had brought in various contraband items, including crack cocaine and cell phones, claiming that she was coerced into smuggling the items by inmates who threatened her family and not for the $1000 she was paid.

At trial, she completely repudiated her videotaped confession and maintained that she had been badgered by police into making a false statements.

Nobody at trial, believed her, not the judge, not the prosecutor and not even her own lawyer, who called her story "hard to believe."

Both the crown and defence suggested that a five and a half year sentence was appropriate and Quebec Court Judge Patrick Healy agreed, convicting her on four counts of trafficking in drugs and one of conspiracy to traffic.
She was then packed off to jail.

Now for rub.

She was recently granted parole and sent to a halfway house, after serving less than one year.
Yup, eleven months.

It seems that in Canada, under the right circumstances, a five a half year prison sentence can be purged in less than a year. Really!

I always thought (foolishly) that when you applied for parole, you had to have served at least one third of your sentence, behaved well in jail and taken ownership and responsibility for your crime.

Remember Roger Latimer, the Saskatchewan farmer who killed his daughter because she was suffering excruciating pain due to her cerebral palsy. He wouldn't admit to the parole board that the mercy-killing was wrong, that he was remorseful and that he regretted his actions. Because of this, his release was held up.

Alice English stills maintains her innocence today and now claims she was not aware of what was inside the bag she smuggled into prison. She has maintained this fiction throughout her trial and subsequent incarceration. English also claims that although she worked as a guard for sixteen years, this was the first time she ever smuggled anything into prison. Sure....
She has variously told stories that she was 'set up' by others and that she was 'testing' the system.

How she was granted parole under these conditions begs an explanation.

The incredibly generous parole offered to Canadian prisoners has not gone unnoticed.
Recently an American judge made it a condition that the Canadian women convicted for drowning her son in Lake Champlain, be obliged to do her time in the USA. He stated that he opposed repatriation based on the lenient parole system in Canada.

One of the motivating reasons behind David Radler's plea bargain and subsequent testimony in the trial of Conrad Black was the condition that he be transferred to a Canadian jail. Mr. Radler is already free after serving about a year of his 29 month sentence. How lovely.

Canadian prison officials are proud to remind us that their primary goal is rehabilitation.

Most Canadians would probably agree that the primary function of incarceration is punishment.

Perhaps we need to change the old saying -

"Do the crime- Do the time"

to reflect the Canadian reality;

"Do the Crime - Do very little time"

Sovereignist Web Site Protesting English- Has English Only Ads

The nationalist web site AmeriQuebec.net ran an article about a demonstration held in front of the Immigration and Refugee board. The Mouvement Montréal français (MMF) and the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal (SSJB) were protesting the fact that the board had ruled that certain evidence, in a certain trial, didn't need to be translated into French (the case is actually more complicated.)

In demanding vigilance in defending and safeguarding the French language, it seems AmeriQuebec, doesn't include itself.


Three out of the four ads that appear on the same page as the article, are strictly in English.

Whaat!! Yep....ENGLISH ONLY!!!!!!

Strangely, two of the ads are promoting emigration to the United States. Wonderful!

I know that the ads are auto generated, but perhaps they should take their own advice and make a better effort to have their own website frenchfried frenchified.

Otherwise, shut up and stop giving out gratuitous advice.

You must admit, the whole thing is sweetly ironic.

AmeriQuebec, HEAL THYSELF!

Father's-4-Justice and Guy Lafleur Railroaded By Prosecutors

Benoit Leroux and Gilles Dumas are two members of Father's-4 -Justice, a political action group dedicated to fighting the legal and political system, in relation to the systematic denial of equal parenting rights for men, in divorce situations. The two were recently convicted of mischief and conspiracy as a result of a publicity stunt they pulled back in May 2005.
Leroux, wearing a 'Robin' costume (as in Batman & Robin), climbed atop the Jacques Cartier Bridge in Montreal and unfurled a banner demanding parental equality. His partner in crime, Dumas, served as his liaison on the ground. Traffic was held up for hours, as police shut down the bridge.

F4J is a support group for fathers, unjustly denied parental rights. Started in the UK, it sprouted chapters in the Netherlands and Canada in 2004, and in the USA and Italy in 2005.
Stymied in the courts and legislatures, the 'Justice league,' resorts to highly visual stunts to bring attention to their cause. Dressed up in superhero costumes, they climb buildings and bridges and unfurl protest banners, causing disturbances that invariably garner publicity.


Guy Lafleur is an ex-hockey superstar who played for the Montreal Canadiens. Long after his career ended, he still remains a highly popular and recognizable celebrity in Quebec. He is also the father of a troubled son, Mark, who's problems with drugs led to his arrest and conviction on more than a dozen charges, including uttering death threats, forcible confinement and assault.
Like any good father, Mr. Lafleur stood by his son and tried to see him through the ordeal.
While free on bail, Mark broke conditions and crown prosecutors claim that his father, Guy helped him do so. They are charging Mr. Lafleur for lying about it in court.

What you may ask, do Benoit Leroux, Gilles Dumas and Guy Lafleur have in common?
Not much, it would seem, but there is an important connection.

All three men are being pursued by a vengeful justice system, one that wants to punish them, not only for the alleged crime that they committed, but because their 'crime' is perceived as an attack on the justice system.

In the case of Mr. Lafleur, prosecutors were outraged that he allegedly helped his son break bail conditions and then lied about it in court. They took personal offence that they were being mocked and decided to strike back.

They took the extraordinary measure of issuing an arrest warrant, instead of a simple summons. Mr. Lafleur was forced to come to the police station and was arrested like a common criminal, when ordinarily, his lawyer would have been telephoned and been asked to bring in his client at an appointed time. The prosecutors proceeded with the showy arrest knowing full well that Mr. Lafleur wasn't exactly a flight risk. The whole procedure was staged to maximize his humiliation as punishment for crossing them in court.

Had Mr. Lafleur committed a similar, but a less personally offensive crime, it would have taken months to proceed to a charge (if any) and then the sickeningly slow pace of justice would ultimately have lead to the charges being dropped or the inevitable plea-down.

A word of warning to prosecutors. If they prefer charges that would entitle Mr. Lafleur to a jury trial, they will be in for a big surprise. Their harsh and cruel treatment of an icon, one who was desperately trying to help his son, has not played out well in the public. It's most unlikely that any jury in Quebec will convict him.

In the case of Benoit Leroux and Gilles Dumas, it was preordained that the justice system would treat them harshly. Had they been protesting in favour of gay rights, a native or women's cause, the case would have long ago been dropped or plead down to a misdemeanour.

But they were protesting against a biased court system and that's what did them in. Prosecutors would have none of that and an example would have to be made.

Considering, that all that the two did was to delay traffic, was a 'conspiracy' charge really appropriate?
It's true that lots of people were inconvenienced, but that's what protest is all about.

In May 2003, three hundred city of Montreal blue collar workers surrounded city hall with heavy machinery and blocked access to the whole neighborhood, in protest against lagging contract negotiations. Nothing, not even ambulances could get through the blockade, for hours.

Was one participant arrested or charged? No.
Did union organizers ever face justice? No.

Why not? Police had plenty of opportunity to make arrests, yet they chose not to.
The protest was obviously well organized and prepared in advance, so why didn't prosecutors charge the higher ups who planned the event, with 'conspiracy'?

We've all been inconvenienced by peaceful protests and wildcat strikes.
Students demonstrations, union disruptions, taxis, truckers and farmers who block roads to make their grievances known...etc. It's all part of life in a modern society, nobody ever gets charged or goes to jail.

So why were Benoit Leroux and Gilles Dumas treated differently? Why were they made to suffer when every one else is given a pass?

It seems that you can protest against just about anything with immunity, but if you protest against the justice system, expect prosecutors to take notice and expect the full weight of the law to come down on you.

The lesson is, don't embarrass or attack the justice system. Prosecutors will defend their turf. They will use their discretionary power to ruthlessly punish anyone who defies them or who attacks their integrity or otherwise makes them look foolish.

When that happens, you can be sure that the punishment, will most definitely, not fit the crime.

While both these cases don't rise to the level of the famous Chicago Seven trial, (where in 1969, a biased American judge harshly and unfairly treated the accused because they were mocking him and the judicial system) it's important that the public take a stand against prosecutorial excess.

Prosecutors need to be sent a message;

Don't make it personal, it isn't fair and we will not stand for it.