http://look.ca/en/files/Look_Confere...

Right from the horse's (McGoey's) mouth, recorded for posterity in front of various legal teams -- quotations in italics.

From pages 10 / 11:

So why is it necessary for Look to sell some or all, in whole or in part, of its key assets? Well, since 2004, Look has faced very difficult strategic challenges. We have participated in and seen new technologies being developed and believe in the potential to significantly improve offerings to Canadian consumers. Unfortunately, Look has not been able to raise sufficient amounts of capital required to build out its network, using its mobile multi-media and enabling assets. We estimate that such a build-out would require approximately $500 million or more if Look was to go it alone. But if this was done by an existing service provider in Ontario, Quebec, the amount of capital required would be significantly less.
During this time, we have had discussions with numerous players, including pension funds and companies in the telecommunications, cable, broadcasting, private-equity capitals throughout Canada and the United States but unsuccessful in concluding a transaction.
We have explored a wide range of options for Look to access capital, either on its own or in partnership with providers of capital or industry participants. And also have discussed the maximization of shareholder value with them. We did this both directly and through an investment bank that was retained by Look. It was and is apparent to us that sufficient debt or equity capital is not available.
It was also apparent to us that an investment of this magnitude, however sourced, would be extremely risky in view of the dominant market positions, brand recognition and financial capacities of the incumbent cable wireless and telephone companies. The current credit crisis only makes raising capital in any forum today even that much more difficult.

So there you have it folks -- nobody's willing to give a publicly traded company with some semblance of transparency (could be better we agree) half a billion $$$, but they'll be more than willing to give the private UBS which lingers in the shadows that wad of cash. Yeah, sure, no problem. And then there's the brand recognition -- wow, how could it be any better. Everybody in Ontario and Quebec knows who private UBS is, don't they? They're like a marketing machine, lol -- and yeah, the incumbents wouldn't make it there sole mission to crush them into oblivion.

From pages 18 / 19:

And secondly, depending on who our partner is, and what spectrum holdings they have, this partnership or joint venture or outright sale, the ultimate owner could decide to keep the spectrum as mobile broadcast and use 100 per cent of it for that and use their own AWS spectrum or whatever other spectrum they have, PCS spectrum, etc., in such a manner that they use that for two-way communication. I wouldn't jump to conclusions that all potential owners, partners, joint-venture holders will treat the spectrum usage the same way. I would just suffice to say that it's 100 megahertz, it can be used for mobile, it can be used for stationary, it can be used for redundancy, it can be used for many purposes.
What we've talked about at Look is what we call M3 mobile multi-media and we've given the direction the company would do if it was on its own because it doesn't have any spectrum. If it was with another company with spectrum, I would suggest that consideration be reconsidered.

Interesting, so potential suitor could just wish to offer television and high-speed internet in the near term -- get their brand out there and take some market share away from the incumbants in Ontario all the while building out the next generation network while getting revenues in the meantime.