Court quashes Tory cabinet’s Globalive decision (overturned) - Page 4 - Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

post #46 of 124 (permalink) Old 2011-02-08, 12:35 AM
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 63
I see.. that makes so much sense. I mean totally. I hope they use that argument in the courts. Big or small the rules apply to them all. Catchy huh. Break the rules cause you are big... wow I learned something today.. if you were on Winds crack legal team they would have no worries.. and yes.. some how.. I have a feeling you are. " So they had to look elsewhere for someone with enough patience and willing to take the risk. " so that is why they are for sale? hmm 14 months yes thats patience.
Rockjock is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #47 of 124 (permalink) Old 2011-02-08, 12:36 AM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockjock View Post
colin what difference does any of that make? if the rules are for all why do they get extra consideration? So what you are saying is their plans were bigger so they should be exempt? You are clearly biased here. You rational is loopy. they had bigger plans? maybe they should have had smaller plans and built up slowly. I simply can not fathom your logic here. So when you shop for a car do you look at what you clearly can not afford? When you order a meal and have 20.00 in your pocket do you order the most expensive meal and then figure oh well when the bill comes I will simply say I was more hungry than the other bloke .. so thats ok?
I said none of that, I think you need to reread my post. What I said is that it clearly is not possible to start up the fourth major carrier with Canadian investment. If the government wants a fourth major carrier (and they have said they do) then they need to change the laws.

There is nothing wrong with Wind asking for an exemption. You can't go steal a cup of sugar from your neighbour, but that doesn't mean you can't ask him for one. And it's not your fault if he says yes without first consulting with his wife. Tony Clement gave permission to Wind to operate. He didn't have the authority to do so, but Wind didn't know that. The fault here lies with Clement, who should have checked with parliament before he gave Wind a cup of sugar.
TorontoColin is offline  
post #48 of 124 (permalink) Old 2011-02-08, 12:49 AM
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 63
colin wait a sec how would the government know what globalive wanted??? its a auction. So you have a chance of not getting the spectrum you wanted. So your theory does not hold water.. You can not give them special treatment. I am sorry but you have to realize that wind got a gimme.. and now it looks like it will be taken away. They have 43 days to become compliant, well 14 months and 45 days to be exact.

I want to build something bigger so let me bend the rules .. sorry gents you guys are too small.. end of the line.. hold your bollocks and cough.. Tony need not cough you has no bollocks.
Rockjock is offline  
 
post #49 of 124 (permalink) Old 2011-02-08, 12:58 AM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,981
They didn't need to be compliant to bid in the auction.

Of course they got a gimme. I just said above that the government had to give them one of they wanted a fourth major carrier.

Last edited by TorontoColin; 2011-02-08 at 01:45 AM.
TorontoColin is offline  
post #50 of 124 (permalink) Old 2011-02-08, 08:25 AM
Member #1
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 47,716
Warning: I have had several complaints about this thread so let me remind people of some rules

Quote:
Abuse of other members is not tolerated - denigrating other members with criticism and sarcastic comments is not acceptable. This includes belittling a members city, town, province or country. We welcome diverse points of view but we will not tolerate illegal, obscene, rude, racist and intolerant behavior.

Zero tolerance for flaming - Digital Home has zero tolerance for flames. If you have an issue with a post or someone's behavior then use the Report Bad Post feature and let our moderators deal with. If you respond and flame another member, you will be issued an infraction.

No obscene language - if your mother or teacher told you not to use a word in public or writing then don't use it here. Remember when you signed up to the forums you checked that "you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws."
I am happy that everyone has a point of view and I encourage you to express it, however, keep your comments objective and on topic or you may find your posts removed.



hugh is offline  
post #51 of 124 (permalink) Old 2011-02-08, 08:40 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Winterpeg
Posts: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockjock View Post
I see.. that makes so much sense. I mean totally. I hope they use that argument in the courts. Big or small the rules apply to them all. Catchy huh. Break the rules cause you are big... wow I learned something today.. if you were on Winds crack legal team they would have no worries.. and yes.. some how.. I have a feeling you are. " So they had to look elsewhere for someone with enough patience and willing to take the risk. " so that is why they are for sale? hmm 14 months yes thats patience.
It's not a legal defense. You asked why Wind needed so much foreign money and I explained why.

The real legal defense at the heart of the issue, is what does "controlled in fact" mean. This is the one part that Industry Canada and the CRTC disagreed on. Wind is set up so that Canadians do in fact control the majority of the voting shares. The debt however is heavily in favour of Orascom. The CRTC believed that with the heavy debt load, foreigners could exert control.

While this could be true, what would the foreigners try to make Wind do that would be so bad? They still have to follow all Canadian laws no matter who Wind is owned by. And if Orascom did try to make Wind do something they didn't like, Lacavera could out vote them on the Board. At that point Orascom legally wouldn't be able to do anything about it aside from not loan Wind anymore money.
sk1d is offline  
post #52 of 124 (permalink) Old 2011-02-08, 11:15 PM
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 63
sk1d your explanation was nonsense. They needed the bending of the laws because they are bigger? making bigger promises? They needed the laws bent because they could not become compliant. There was a quoite 90% of the debt.. so all of the experts, all the know how all of the backing pretty much Orascom bought built and ran it and just said that tony was the boss? A reasonable person can not believe that all the debt and all of the business savvy does not equal control. The CRTC twice said you are not compliant.. why were the other 3 compliant.. the excuse that they were going to be the 4th national network simply does not cut it. Big or small the rules apply to them all.. I shall have that put on a t-shirt and have some busy gal model it. But to get back on point. Why should you bend the rules.. HAD Wind been more modest in their entry could wind have been compliant? No... had they borrowed 450 million or 45 million they still would have gotten it from the same place Orascom and still been non compliant. All the debt means all the control. To believe otherwise is silly. It really is. But as I have said it is all about cheap wireless and as long as you have cheap celly you care not. So the spectrul auction was to bring in more competition.. 3 out of 4 entrants made it.. so there is choice. Clearly all the new players have subs. 3 of them followed the rules and all played under the same set of said rules.. and yet 1 skirted the rules, got a gimme, knew it was going to be appealed.. failed to get funding.. and now instead of saying hey we are Canadian.. we are red and white.. they say.. whats so bad about foreign ownership.. stark contrast to what Tony said before.. so he says so what if Orascom is in control, so what if they read me bed time stories, so what if they tell me what to do and how to do it.. it is, after all... all about cheap cellular.. because.. Rome was not built in a day and the customer decides with his feet, we have to earn his business every month.. Lets home someone reaches out to Tony well Both of them.. and they get their stories right. Because right now.. its a mess.
Rockjock is offline  
post #53 of 124 (permalink) Old 2011-02-08, 11:25 PM
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 63
" what would the foreigners try to make Wind do that would be so bad? They still have to follow all Canadian laws no matter who Wind is owned by "

sk1d ummm are they to choose which laws to follow.. seems to me the law said you can not have that much foreign investment.. so is that not a law they should be following?

So they would follow some laws but not all laws.. interesting.. so what about the laws of paying taxes.. follow or not? Law on employment standards.. yay or nay ..

So does anyone have a answer to why the other 3 entrants had no issues and Wind did.. please do not say they are bigger, please do not say because we need competition.. and also no comments on how you like Tonys wardrobe. Why do the laws apply for the others and not for Wind. You are all aware had wind played by the rules we would not be making these posts. They would have launched and made you all very very happy and no one could have said a word. But you play fast and loose and then you get caught.
Rockjock is offline  
post #54 of 124 (permalink) Old 2011-02-08, 11:46 PM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,981
Whether you accept it or not, the reason that they needed foreign money is because they are building something much bigger than the others.

You can argue that wanting to build something bigger was a mistake but you cannot dispute that the other new entrants are not trying to build on the same scale as Wind.
TorontoColin is offline  
post #55 of 124 (permalink) Old 2011-02-09, 01:05 PM
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Richmond, BC
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by sk1d View Post

While this could be true, what would the foreigners try to make Wind do that would be so bad? They still have to follow all Canadian laws no matter who Wind is owned by. And if Orascom did try to make Wind do something they didn't like, Lacavera could out vote them on the Board. At that point Orascom legally wouldn't be able to do anything about it aside from not loan Wind anymore money.
That is the crux of the matter. That holding of debt should by the structure of shares and BoD composition not be a factor in board decisions, but it could be (and often is in similar cases) because of performance terms and other conditions that do in fact constrain the BoD from making decisions without due consideration being given to the interests of that particular debt holder. The withdrawal of future funding or a call on existing debt could put WIND into insolvency, the BoD can't simply ignore that regardless of their theoretical voting power.
robsaw is offline  
post #56 of 124 (permalink) Old 2011-02-09, 02:43 PM
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorontoColin View Post
Whether you accept it or not, the reason that they needed foreign money is because they are building something much bigger than the others.

You can argue that wanting to build something bigger was a mistake but you cannot dispute that the other new entrants are not trying to build on the same scale as Wind.
Colin you are running around in circles. You can not use that as a valid excuse. It does not matter what they were building. Nor the scale of it. The rules are the rules. Be it a quickie mart on the corner or a chain of fast food across the country the rules for ownership and control are the same. Also it was an auction so Globalive had no idea how much they would spend or if they would get it. Neither could the government so your argument does not work. I have a feeling the argument I make will come up and the question will be asked how the other entrants were able to comply. The best thing for the 2 Tonys is for this thing to go away and fast. The longer it take the more information trickles out.

Robsaw I too had thought they would do something, anything to become compliant. That is the only chink in the armour Wind has in this issue. The Achilles heel as it were To be fair, and I am a fair man, it is not easy to get anyone to partner up with Sawris let alone convince an investor to get on board with such an uncertain future.

I am also hearing that the other Ken is going to have some damming things to say. Speculation is he will confirm that they were not compliant and knew this, and made no effort to do so. Also they they knew of the investigation upon the back room deals completion.

Interesting days ahead.
Rockjock is offline  
post #57 of 124 (permalink) Old 2011-02-09, 03:24 PM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,981
You didn't ask for an excuse, you asked for a reason why they needed more money. Two very different things.

I think you have your timeline confused. They did not need to be compliant for the auction. They were advised that they probably were not but were allowed to bid anyway. It was after the auction that the CRTC found them non-compliant and Tony Clement overturned the decision.

Like all higher-ups Ken signed an NDA, he can't say anything.
TorontoColin is offline  
post #58 of 124 (permalink) Old 2011-02-09, 04:51 PM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,830
Didn't the CRTC first come back with a list of changes they wanted Wind to make, and Wind made those changes, but the CRTC denied their entry anyway? I don't remember as this was all hashed out on the Wind forum almost two years ago. I do remember that the government did give the go ahead for Wind to bid on the spectrum, knowing where their debt was held.

I do remember that Rockjock where making the same argument back then as he is now. At least these forums have good moderators on them, unlike Wind's forums, which where non existent. So this shouldn't get too out of control like it did before.
jshel101 is online now  
post #59 of 124 (permalink) Old 2011-02-09, 07:16 PM
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 63
Colin are you getting dizzy? I have asked you why you feel the rules need be bent for wind. Thus far your answer is because they were building something bigger than the rest. It was an auction their intention was to build something bigger.. intent. The broke the rules. We agree? Also now that the judge has looked and as a matter of law wind should be forced to become compliant, or close up shop. Pretty straight simple. My examples I have given you are classic ones.. driving without the right to do so but stating you will get the rights later.. the rules apply across the board... big or small.. in a city or national.

Colin my time line is spot on. You must pass both standards to be able to go to market. This is not a hidden clause. We are not talking about you building your deck out a little too far here.. we are talking about employing experts in the legal field to make sure your t's are crossed and your i's dotted. NDA somehow I knew you would toss that one out there. I sign a NDA while in a company that knowingly dumps toxic waste into a river. It comes to light this is an illegal/unlawful act.. I am indemnified now from my NDA. So if it is a trade secret.. sure it holds up.. but an illegal act? Breach of trust, failure to act with due diligence.. or a clear violation of the laws.. Quashed.

Back to the question. What makes wind so special that the laws do not apply to them? Colin please be clear here. The argument that they had bigger plans, or that the business plan was not attractive to homegrown investors is moot.

BTW nothing personal I am just asking you a honest question.

Last edited by Rockjock; 2011-02-09 at 07:45 PM. Reason: Terrible spelling mistake
Rockjock is offline  
post #60 of 124 (permalink) Old 2011-02-09, 07:27 PM
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 63
jshel101 You are correct they did make some changed but they did not address the issue at hand. Then they were told to try again. And the same thing happened and they were told I believe to lower the debt load and it was said pretty much verbatim that they could not believe that all the debt = no control.. then they were denied.. I applaud Colin and Hugh for allowing this discussion to go on. It is of great interest as the question is raised do we change the laws of this land to benefit 1 malcontent since clearly 3 other applicants had no issue getting funding and going to market. Or do we hold wind to task and make them do what they should have done in the beginning.. follow the rules that all companies do. Are they special? Do they deserve special treatment? I found it amusing how Tony would switch his tune.. In the beginning he was wrapping himself int he flag, now he asks whats so bad with foreign investment, foreign control? He never says yea sure we bent the rules, sure the other new guys could have gotten more money and gotten bigger slices of the pie, sure they could have done that.. but what does that matter? The law should be changed. yes we broke it.. but still it should be changed for our favor.. Gooo Wind! Just go.
Rockjock is offline  
Reply

Tags
globalive , wind , wind mobile

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome