• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

The Paramount Saga

CTListener said:
Et tu, Michael? I've seen posts on RD, Facebook and X by people who've actually visited and even vacationed in that city who still misspell it. It's Fort Myers, and has been since the 1850s, when it got its current name. I'm not sure there's another commonly misspelled city that stumps even people who've been there.
Click to expand...

Sorry, CT. My goof entirely. I watch Seth Meyers every night, and have typed his name "Myers" countless times. That's just one that I have a problem with.
 
Nathan Obral said:
So what happens to KCAL? No one would pay for a station with massive gaps in their schedule because they lose all the news programming. Insanity.
Click to expand...

Companies buy stations with cancelled shows and syndication contracts that are about to expire all the time. It allows them to make choices as to what and how they want to program and with what kind of budget.


Nathan Obral said:
Assuming there's a sucker out there that wants to overpay for a station like that, then would pay exorbitant fees to CBS over and over again. Just throw money into an incinerator, it's better off that way.
Click to expand...

You keep assuming there's "overpaying" going on. And is every indie that's paying a non-affiliated major to produce newscasts for them throwing money into an incinerator, or are they getting programming for a fraction of the cost of having their own newsroom, giving them more valuable advertising avails to sell than they would have with syndication?


Nathan Obral said:
That's if CBS wanted to sell those stations at substantial losses.
Click to expand...

That depends on the agreed upon sale price and the book value of each station. We can't know the first until it happens and we don't know the second now.

Nathan Obral said:
Which removes said smaller operators (if there are any left) and ethnic and religious broadcasters. So that leaves the big chains that can't (Nexstar, Tenga, Sinclair, Scripps and Gray) or won't (Apollo, Hearst and Graham) buy anything.
Click to expand...

Just because there's no one in the market for $2 billion worth of network O&Os (that you can think of), it doesn't mean there aren't companies out there who'd be interested in picking up independent stations individually.
 
Last edited:
michael hagerty said:
Companies buy stations with cancelled shows and syndication contracts that are about to expire all the time. It allows them to make choices as to what and how they want to program and with what kind of budget.
Click to expand...
The market for syndicated programming is moribund. It's single handidly kept Byron Allen afloat with all his crappy court shows but not by much.
michael hagerty said:
You keep assuming there's "overpaying" going on.
Click to expand...
Because in this market of higher interest rates, overall stagnation, and general declines in linear television viewership across-the-board, it is overpaying.
michael hagerty said:
And is every indie that's paying a non-affiliated major to produce newscasts for them throwing money into an incinerator, or are they getting programming for a fraction of the cost of having their own newsroom, giving them more valuable advertising avails to sell than they would have with syndication?
Click to expand...
These signals in question are better off as diginet trees run off the bird, many of which are better programmed anyway. But that ain't going to be the value CBS would want.
michael hagerty said:
That depends on the agreed upon sale price and the book value of each station. We can't know the first until it happens and we don't know the second now.
Click to expand...
And I'm being bold enough to say that, unlike spuriously starting fantasy television trading based on a loose interpretation of a Hollywood Reporter article, the chances of any deal happening are imperceptible because no buyers exist. Unless it happens, it won't happen.
michael hagerty said:
You seem to be completely baffled by the idea that just because there's no one in the market for $2 billion worth of network O&Os, it doesn't mean there aren't companies out there who'd be interested in picking up stations individually.
Click to expand...
Absurd. None of the major transactions since 2012 among television group mergers and acquisitions have been piecemeal. They've always been as whole units with small divestitures to meet the bare minimum of federal regulations. If CBS were to sell anything (unlikely) it'd be as a group.
 
Last edited:
Nathan Obral said:
The market for syndicated programming is moribund. It's single handidly kept Byron Allen afloat with all his crappy court shows but not by much.

Because in this market of higher interest rates, overall stagnation, and general declines in linear television viewership across-the-board, it is overpaying.

These signals in question are better off as diginet trees run off the bird, many of which are better programmed anyway. But that ain't going to be the value CBS would want.

And I'm being bold enough to say that, unlike spuriously starting fantasy television trading based on a loose interpretation of a Hollywood Reporter article, the chances of any deal happening are imperceptible because no buyers exist.

Absurd. None of the major transactions since 2012 among television group mergers and acquisitions have been piecemeal. They've always been as whole units with small divestitures to meet the bare minimum of federal regulations. If CBS were to sell anything (unlikely) it'd be as a whole group.
Click to expand...

It will be absolutely fascinating to come back as this goes on and see how well that holds up.
 
Nathan Obral said:
I have come to resent speculative fantasy television trading talk because the scenarios proffered inevitably never come true. This is no different.

Let's talk about reality instead.
Click to expand...

(screen goes all wavy, harp music plays)


March 1, 2024:


This is why Shari is having a really hard time finding anyone to take Paramount off her hands. It's Skydance and no one else—I do not count Byron Allen as he has a great track record of never closing that one big deal. And Skydance isn't exactly a bidder I'd be bullish on.

I'd give it a few months before Shari takes Paramount off the market.
Click to expand...
 
Nathan Obral said:
Like all the posts months ago insinuating it was a fait accompli that Discovery Communications, Inc., was going to buy Paramount? Please.
Click to expand...

Dude, your quote specifically cites Skydance.

As for "fantasy" vs. "reality", the only "reality" is when the deals happen. You can subscribe to Broadcasting & Cable for that. This is a discussion board.
 
michael hagerty said:
Dude, your quote specifically cites Skydance.
Click to expand...
Which didn't happen until it did. So?
michael hagerty said:
As for "fantasy" vs. "reality", the only "reality" is when the deals happen. You can subscribe to Broadcasting & Cable for that. This is a discussion board.
Click to expand...
Not when it's speculative fiction like this and these boards have had repeated instances of people delving into insane wishcasting that the mods and other users object to. I object to it in any way.

You can wishcast all you want here because I am done.
 
Nathan Obral said:
Who'd be able to buy them when the industry already rapidly consolidated and the available pool of buyers is totally depleted? Nexstar, Tegna and Scripps are unavailable, Apollo is disinterested in Cox, and Sinclair can't sell a whole bunch of small-market stations they've had on the block for months. Utterly ridiculous.

Given how much these boards devolve into insane wishcasting at the expense of the sanity of the mods and other members like myself, I would rather not speculate over an unsubstantiated rumor clearly written to drive website traffic over to The Hollywood Reporter.
Click to expand...
It obviously will get done the sale and the HR article quoted David Ellison, who will control the linear/streaming. And BET operates independently.
 
Nathan Obral said:
Which is why I do not like either of you in any way. You're both guilty of the same thing you're flaming me on.
Click to expand...

Kelly and I have discussed the upsides and downsides of potential mergers and have never insinuated "it was a fait accompli that Discovery Communications, Inc., was going to buy Paramount."

And seriously, who's flaming who? I posted links to articles from respected publications, paraphrased points from them and you came out, guns blazing on "how much these boards devolve into insane wishcasting at the expense of the sanity of the mods and other members like myself".

I give possible scenarios (following a 53 year career in broadcasting that included executive positions at an independent TV station in a Top 15 market) and you said what you said, so I posted what you said four months ago that negates it.

Kelly and I may not be the most diplomatic guys on earth when provoked, but we are the among the least likely people on this board to indulge in "fantasy" and "wishcasting".
 
Nathan Obral said:
Which is why I do not like either of you in any way. You're both guilty of the same thing you're flaming me on.
Click to expand...
Catching you in a comment contrary to a prior comment is considered flaming?
Hmm... Let's go to the Cambridge Dictionary:
flaming
adjective
used to add force, especially anger, to something that is said:
Put that down you flaming idiot!
the act of sending an angry or insulting email

Looks like the answer is: Neither Mike nor I 'flamed' you. He only called your attention to a prior contrary post, and I complimented Mike on making the effort to find the contrarian statement.
 
A stockholder has filed a lawsuit against the Paramount merger.


No question that the stockholder speaks the truth. The question is does it matter?

"That payout is only worth $12.23 per Paramount Class B share. Thus, when the merger closes, the non-NAI Class B shareholders will suffer $1.65 billion in damages," the lawsuit said.
The plaintiff alleged the merger was unfair and disadvantageous to Paramount's Class B stockholders, who will not receive a fair share of the benefits compared to Redstone and National Amusements Inc (NAI), which owns a controlling stake in Paramount.
Click to expand...

The only upside is we get rid of Shari Redstone. Is it worth it?
 


Back
Top Bottom