Slashdot Mirror
Time Warner Turns Down Takeover Bid From Rupert Murdoch
Dave Knott (2917251) writes The media giant 21st Century Fox, the empire run by Rupert Murdoch, made an $80 billion takeover bid in recent weeks for Time Warner Inc. but was rebuffed. Time Warner on Wednesday confirmed that it had rejected a cash and stock offer from 21st Century Fox, saying that it was not in the company's best interests. Time Warner's board discussed the proposal at length and early this month it sent a terse letter rejecting the offer, saying the company was better off remaining independent. A Time Warner statement pointed to its own strategic plan, what it said was "uncertainty" over the value of 21st Century Fox stock and regulatory risks as among the reasons for its rebuff. The company said that 21st Century Fox had offered a premium of roughly 22 percent to Time Warner's closing price on Tuesday. Shares of Time Warner were up about 20 percent in premarket trading on Wednesday morning. The combined company would have total revenue of $65 billion.
The more these big media / film studios merge, the less choice there will be.
I thought the idea was that Comcast was merging with Time Warner in order to strengthen their cable monopoly. Is Time Warner's ISP a different business than Time Warner's content company or something?
To turn down a $80 billion dollar deal...that's the price Time Warner is willing to pay to keep their successful business successful. South Park sold out to Hulu for only a fraction of the price, $80 million! $80 billion, nah, we're better off independent.
What about the opposite idea? If your company has over 70% monopoly in a specific sector for over five years, it has to be split into two new companies and must compete with each other.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
3...2...1....
If you studied the matter you would find there are other reasons you should not want these mergers other than 'it won't affect me' Wouldn't it be great if there was a choice of cable/content providers? Look around there is, and it would help to keep switching back to satellite once in a while.
If you're trying to sound more intelligent than OP, here's some advice:
1. Spell "Reagan" correctly.
2. Use single periods to end sentences, not double periods.
3. "Obamatrons" - a plural - does not use an apostrophe.
4. Learn about, and use, commas.
5. Pro-tip: If you want to squeeze an Appeal to Authority past people in an argument, don't use yourself as the authority.
....shudder....
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
They will still have a monopoly in my area regardless of who owns what.
This is off topic, since TWC isn't the same company as TWI, but...
They keep talking about the "lack of overlap" in their markets, but that's bogus. Comcast and TWC overlap in the "negotiating with content providers" market. The larger the company, the harder they can negotiate against the cable channel providers not already owned by one of them. They might say this will yield lower prices for consumers, but you and I know that's total bullshit.
What it actually means is that they'll either drop channels that won't negotiate, and focus more on providing only channels they create, or the third-party channels they keep will need more ads - more in-show ads - and cheaper shows (reality TV) to make up the difference in revenue they lost.
I don't like the content providers either (give me a la carte or give me death!) but TWC and Comcast at two separate negotiating tables is much better for consumers than a merged monolith at one table.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Remember when America Online bought TimeWarner? That actually happened. Almost as crazy as being bought by the parent company of DC Comics.
Actually, the Federalists and Washington got along quite well. Everything up to that, I'll agree with.
it would help to keep switching back to satellite once in a while.
For what? A 10 GB per month data cap? (source: exede.com)
Time Warner spun off Time Inc. last month. So why isn't it back to Warner Communications now?
Reportedly the plan was to let National Amusements (parent of Viacom and CBS) and Disney (parent of ESPN and ABC) bid on CNN.
You propose to trigger a breakup once a firm maintains a supermajority market share in a sector. Now define a "sector". Would you, say, break up Tesla for making 70% of desirable 4-wheel electric passenger vehicles when nobody else is attempting to sell anything but purposely bad compliance cars? (In fact, after seeing other automakers' failure to deliver a solid EV, Tesla decided it doesn't even want a monopoly and announced availability of its patents for licensing.) Would you break up the NFL for having the lion's share of professional football revenue?
And the Republicans will blame Clinton for everything
I don't see how, given how much more the Gingrich House got done than the Boehner House has.
If Fox were to get DC, does that mean the X-Men would finally get to cross over with the rest of Marvel once Fox rewrites the next X-Men film script for DC's Doom Patrol?
Its not often that Time Warner looks good next to another corporation.
After sharing headlines with AOL, Comcast, and now Rupert Murdoch they may have run out of worse alternatives...
This is really a mater of modern convention. Webster's has a good ask the editor video entry on the history of the two forms and how often they changed. Your likely right that most people are ignorantly using the wrong form, but like many things in our language its silly to get upset about it with out some sense of etymology.
Momento Mori
It depends on how badly he wants it.
He can do a hostile take over which basically means he or his company ends up cpntrolling 51 percent of the voting stock and puts his own management team in charge and forces a merger.
He doesn't have to own 51% of the stock, just enough to be able to vote and somehow manage to get enough other stock holders to side with him ( and yes, paying them is a valid tactic).
And the Republicans will blame Clinton for everything
I don't see how, given how much more the Gingrich House got done than the Boehner House has.
Because blowjobs!
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Now I'll never see spider man in the avengers
. .
Fox would have owned CNN.
Of course, FoxNews owns CNN's ass already.
The subject line says it all.
No. No. No.
I'm sure this thing was all just a secret Illuminati plot to put the X-Men and Fantastic 4 movie rights into the hands of DC Comics.
Sectors are defined by a market
Lawyers spend a lot of time trying to convince judges to adopt a definition of relevant product market that gives their respective clients an advantage in competition court. Here's another example: Does GM compete against, say, Trek and Specialized in the personal transportation sector?