Rogers needs to earn back shareholder trust

Ted Rogers once said he was fond of whipping up a frenzy of emotion within the Rogers Communications empire. It was a fighter’s tactic and a trademark of the frequently high-volume entrepreneur driven to see his family-controlled company flourish.

But here’s the bit the wireless titan’s offspring have clearly forgotten: the intention in inciting the troops was to focus collectively on the enemy without — say, Bell Canada — as opposed to pitting sibling against sibling inside the palace walls.

How sad it would make Mr. Rogers, who died in 2008 at age 75, to see the current chaos at the firm.

It’s hard to keep up. To precis: chair Edward Rogers plots to turf the company’s chief executive and elevate his preferred candidate to the role. The plot is revealed through a new benchmark in inept corporate subterfuge — the guy who hoped to become CEO mistakenly pocket-dialled the enemy.

Then Edward himself is turfed. Or not. Through his additional role as chair of the Rogers Control Trust, which retains 98 per cent voting control of Rogers, he reasserts his dominance and moves to strip the communications company of its independent directors with his own slate.

Stage left we meet Ted’s widow, Loretta, and two of her three daughters. Aligned in fighting Edward, the trio, all of whom sit on the board of Rogers, move to support the existing chief executive and challenge the legality of Edward’s attempts to constitute a new board better to his liking.

Edward says he’ll see the clan in court.

The two daughters, Martha and Melinda, have quite distinct social media profiles. Melinda tweets about the Blue Jays and philanthropic endeavours (Rogers owns the Blue Jays). Martha goes gloves-off against her brother, promising to reveal the truth about the “Trump scandal” (Edward and his wife, Suzanne, were photographed with the former president at Mar-a-Lago), mentions 20 years of receipts she has hung onto (no specific allegations are made), dismisses those supporting her brother (“All men. All white. All old”) and likens her brother’s insistence that he remain chair of Rogers Communications to anointing himself King of England. As in, delusional.

Inevitably, the drama has led to comparisons to the megahit series “Succession,” which features the three Roy children, fighting for control of the media colossus built by their father, Logan. This comparison misses the mark. There is nothing in the Rogers drama thus far that demonstrates the complexity of character and confusion of alliances at work among the malign Roy clan.

On the contrary, the two Rogers camps are clearly delineated. As for clever tactical manoeuvring, Torstar’s Christine Dobby reports that Edward Rogers spent part of the summer planning to turf Masai Ujiri as president of the Toronto Raptors without a full grasp of the governance structure of the NBA franchise. (Rogers owns a 37.5 per cent stake in Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment.)

What the Rogers mess does do is cast a bright light on inadequate governance of the company. Critics will inevitably go after its multiple voting share structure, popular in Canadian family enterprises since the 1950s. Remember the Molsons? The Montreal Bronfmans? The passionate determination to keep Canadian companies out of foreign hands?

Many family-controlled, publicly traded companies thrive. But a high governance standard today demands that the chair of the company be independent. Not only was Edward Rogers chair of the company, he was — or is — chair of the nominating committee, which names new directors. It’s time for change, regardless of who wins. It’s time for Rogers to truly earn the confidence of shareholders.