Protonolysis of the titanium alkyl complex [Ti(CH2SiMe3)(Xy‐N3N)] (Xy‐N3N=[{(3,5‐Me2C6H3)NCH2CH2}3N]3−) supported by a triamidoamine ligand, with [NEt3H][B(3,5‐Cl2C6H3)4] or [PhNMe2H][B(C6F5)4] afforded the cations [Ti(Xy‐N3N)][A] (A−=[B(3,5‐Cl2C6H3)4]− (1[B(ArCl)4]; B(ArCl)4=tetrakis(3,5‐dichlorophenyl)borate); A−=[B(C6F5)4]− (1[B(ArF)4]; B(ArF)4=tetrakis[3,5‐bis(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]borate). These Lewis acidic cations were reacted with coordinating solvents to afford the cations [Ti(L)(Xy‐N3N)][B(C6F5)4] (2‐L; L=Et2O, pyridine and THF). XRD analysis revealed a trigonal monopyramidal (TMP) geometry for the tetracoordinate cations in 1[B(ArX)4] and trigonal bipyramidal (TBP) geometry for the pentacoordinate cations in 2‐L. Variable‐temperature NMR spectroscopy showed a dynamic equilibrium for 2‐Et2O in solution, involving the dissociation of Et2O. Coordination to the titanium(IV) center activated the THF molecule, which, in the presence of NEt3, underwent ring‐opening to give the titanium alkoxide [Ti(O(CH2)4NEt3)(Xy‐N3N)][B(3,5‐Cl2C6H3)4] (3). Hydride abstraction from Cβ,eq of the triamidoamine ligand arm in [Ti(CH2SiMe3)(Xy‐N3N)] or [Ti(NMe2)(Xy‐N3N)] with [Ph3C][B(3,5‐Cl2C6H3)4] led to the diamidoamine–imine complex [Ti(R){(Xy‐N=CHCH2)(Xy‐NCH2CH2)2N}][B(3,5‐Cl2C6H3)4] (R=CH2SiMe3 (4 a); R=NMe2 (4 b)). Hydride addition to 4 b with [Li(THF)][HBPh3] gave [Ti(NMe2)(Xy‐N3N)], whereas KH deprotonated further to give [Ti(NMe2){(Xy‐NCH=CH)(Xy‐NCH2CH2)2N}] (5). XRD on single crystals of 3 and 4 b confirmed the proposed structures.