Every serious endeavour begins with missionaries, this is why I refer to prophets as the original entrepreneurs.

Missionaries show up early—before capital is committed, before roles are defined, before outcomes are guaranteed. They operate on conviction, not compensation. They absorb ambiguity, take reputational risk, and do the unglamorous work of making something possible before it is investable.

But here’s the part that often gets misunderstood:

Missionaries alone do not finish the job.

At some point, if the project is real, you also need mercenaries.

That word makes people uncomfortable, but it shouldn’t. Mercenaries bring discipline, structure, execution, and scale. They know how to close. They expect to be paid—and rightly so.

The issue is not missionaries versus mercenaries. It’s sequencing.

Paradox of WatchMojo vs the Peanut Project (Expos return to Montreal)

Everyone’s life comes in chapters, we just don’t know where one ends and another begins. One chapter of my life ended in 2022. Since then, all I see are a series of paradoxes. One of them is the extreme difficulty I faced trying to raise financing from VCs in the early WatchMojo days versus the endless amount of capital available now (both in general, and for YouTube-related opportunities). When in 2020 I sold 25% of the business to a PE firm, I did not need to do anything (another paradox).

Fast forward to December 2025 when divine inspiration turned me into a messianic force exploring a baseball-first, community-driven, financially-compliant effort to bring back baseball and the Expos to Montreal and the paradoxes pile up. Fifty days later, I can see given the new era of sports franchise ownership, that institutional capital is ample, securing a HNWI/Family Office anchor investor is attainable if I remain patient, land needs can be addressed, etc.

What I find fascinating, as someone who understands that to succeed in business you need to master the humanities, namely psychology and sociology, while understanding history, is how different mercenaries interact and engage with me, and how starkly differs with my philosophy, principles and style as a missionary.

I’ve noticed a recurring pattern: some mercenaries front-load the ask:

  • Fees
  • Exclusivity
  • Control
  • Compensation structures
  • Assumptions of permanence

All before:

  • A sanctioned process exists
  • An anchor investor is committed
  • A governing body has opened the door
  • The project even formally exists

Candidly, it’s a lack of self-awareness and perspective. This is not “my project” in the traditional sense. Even if I were to raise substantial capital, I am effectively acting as a conduit on behalf of the league and related stakeholders. There is also a non-trivial possibility that, should a HNWI seek full control, I may not ultimately be retained. And, I am more than fine and at ease with this. In 2018, RBC’s investment banking team asked me to assist on ICM’s acquisition of Just for Laughs. I complied. When the dust settled, the Montreal Canadiens’ parent company Le Group CH prevailed, which made sense as ICM needed someone to run the festival (they own Evenko & run the Jazz Festival). It upset me a bit at the time, but that was a rationale outcome. Today I see it was an experience to prep me for the Peanut Project.

This is not my project in the traditional sense.
I am a catalyst, a conduit, a volunteer.

While I can be the yin to anyone’s yang, humans have insecurities and egos which I do not, cannot, and will not control. That’s not a complaint—it’s reality. When people ask me if I should refrain from commenting on thorny topics to avoid alienating MLB or investors, I explain my thoughts candidly and welcome feedback, but it’s a [sub]conscious way of giving myself an exit strategy, because the JFL outcome is not immaterial.

This is just one reason why I hesitate to agree to fees, obligations, or representations that assume permanence or control I do not have. It’s also being well-versed in sequencing and governance. Any final agreement should be signed off by the PE fund and HNWI/Family Office investors, it is their money after all.

Early Alignment ≠ Early Monetization

When I built WatchMojo, I was admittedly more naïve (or more idealistic).

I believed deeply in alignment across all stakeholders, early and often. I assumed most participants were playing a long game. I assumed fairness would be reciprocated.

Sometimes it was. Often it wasn’t. The JFL outcome was not “fair” but life let alone business is fair.

Twenty years later, I still believe in alignment—but I’m no longer surprised when others don’t.

That’s why I draw a sharp distinction between:

  • Helping early, and
  • Monetizing early

One earns trust. The other often undermines it. This is also why I adhere to the “be long term greedy” mindset and always put people ahead of profit, which ironically explains why in the end, WatchMojo proved to be one of the greatest returns in media and startup history: a 360× return on capital and a 52% IRR over 14 years. Even including all early capital (equity + debt), the return was 120× with a 39% IRR — top-decile performance in private markets.

The Whisperer vs. the Ask

One of the most effective contributors I’ve encountered in recent years—let’s call him the Whisperer—has asked for nothing.

No fee schedule.
No entitlement.
No positioning.

Yet, he has:

  • Opened doors
  • Made introductions
  • Provided insight
  • Added more value than many who led with asks

That’s not altruism. I don’t doubt he one day will! But that’s earned mercenary behavior.

When the time comes, no one will question his participation.

Why Commitment Must Be Deliberate

There’s another, more practical reason for caution.

Quebec sports fans remember Marcel Aubut—and how, intentionally or not, he facilitated the migration of the Nordiques’ soul through transactions that ultimately benefited the Flyers, Rangers, and the city of Colorado where the Nordiques eventually moved to.

That doesn’t make him a villain—but it does remind us why over-committing too early, to too many parties, is dangerous.

You don’t promise permanence when permanence isn’t yours to give.

A Note on Trust and Track Record

When TVA Sports’ Jean-Marc Lajoie interviewed me in early December about the Peanut Project, I alluded to 2004 when the Expos left, and I felt helpless, which led me to pursue a path of entrepreneurship to be able to make an impact: “I was a nobody then (in 2004), I am still a nobody.” It wasn’t mere self-deprecation.

It was a reflection that when I started WatchMojo, I was a nobody who had to earn the trust and loyalty of my team before I could command. I also had to convince mercenaries to advise and assist me with nothing to rely on other that ambition, vision, drive and passion. Those who did benefited handsomely:

“You have been great to work with, an inspirational leader, true to your word every step of the way, and built an impressive business and culture. Not many people can check all those boxes.” – former National Geographic President Ted Prince in 2020, an early advisor in the 2012 era

It was also a realization that as humans all have insecurities and balance personal with professional, we are “nobodies” to those we try to impress though ironically “everything” to those we take for granted (parents, spouses, siblings, children, friends). That’s human nature but for a separate conversation.

Over the past twenty years, the early employees I convinced to join the mission are now executives who have stood by my side for decades, not because I promise outcomes—but because as one colleague said it: “I’ve never worked anywhere where they kept their word.” To me, that seemed like a basic ingredient for success. And that may very well explain why WatchMojo is the real unicorn in the only way that matters (to me).