• 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

Paramount Skydance wants WBD

It's interesting to me that Comcast would want to buy a company with a big cable TV presence, at a time when they're spinning off those assets.
The split could still happen, and if private equity helps finance the deal, they could get Discovery Global. Apollo Global Management was said to help finance Paramount Skydance's bid, and that could easily be constructed as a merger-spinoff (ex: Scripps buying Journal Media Group and splitting so the "new" Scripps got all the broadcast assets and the "new" Journal Media Group got all the newspapers).

Or Comcast structures the deal where they sell the soon-to-be Discovery Global directly to Versant, which would not be impossible given the corporate structure of Versant.
 
What is One News Now?

One News Now is a ridiculously tiny news outlet that was founded by Rev. Donald Wildmon and is now AFN (American Family News). It has....carry the three...ZERO to do with Paramount, Skydance, Warners or Comcast and there's nothing to break up, so I still have no idea what Ted was saying.
 
One News Now is a ridiculously tiny news outlet that was founded by Rev. Donald Wildmon and is now AFN (American Family News). It has....carry the three...ZERO to do with Paramount, Skydance, Warners or Comcast and there's nothing to break up, so I still have no idea what Ted was saying.
Ya I had no idea where he was going with that.
 
I don’t think Comcast will spend large amounts of money on anything for awhile, WBD included


You're missing paragraphs eight and nine:

“It’s important for us to take big swings when we believe they will benefit the company over the long term,” Comcast co-CEO Mike Cavanagh wrote in a memo last year after the deal was announced.
Per Flint, NBC is projecting losses of between $500 million and $1.4 billion in the early years of the deal. The goal — between growing revenue from Peacock subscriptions, increases in affiliate and distribution fees, and more lucrative advertising inventory (NBC is charging approximately $130,000 per 30-second spot, while its predecessor TNT charged about $50,000) — is that the network can begin turning a profit further down the line.

If Comcast owns HBO Max (merging or submerging Peacock into it), and grows Universal by adding Warners, there's a significant increase in revenue, and it can sell WBD's linear assets to offset the purchase.

Corporations don't buy things the way individuals do. They have hundreds (thousands?) of line items on their budget. They're likely to fix NBA losses in the near-term with specific adjustments (cuts) to NBC's budget.

That still leaves the rest of Comcast---a company whose net profit last year alone was $16.19 billion---which can't be constrained by a bad deal (if it's a bad deal) in one division.
 
Another way to look at it is long run. If you "own" a division that creates content, you don't have to worry about bidding for that content. The funding can come from linear , subscription or box office, but you should have something that makes your service "unique or fresh".

With the exception of a few sitcoms, IMHO most programs have a "shelf life". Is a 5 or 10 year old episode of "Survivor" "must see TV" when it has been shown hundreds of times? There could be "generational" shows that folks have forgotten or was on air before some folks were born that could be viable but some of these are most likely already in syndication.

How ever it's delivered, content is king. If it is good people will watch "live" or most of the linear networks have an app that lets you watch the next day.
 
That’s why I wonder when the bubble bursts on these huge contracts.
You have a wild card in the sports coverage equation. The gambling web sites apparently have plenty of money. I wouldn't be surprised if they prop up some leagues just to have something for the gamblers to bet on.
 
You have a wild card in the sports coverage equation. The gambling web sites apparently have plenty of money. I wouldn't be surprised if they prop up some leagues just to have something for the gamblers to bet on.
Well, at least in the NBA, it looks like there is a massive amount fecal matter that's about to come in contact with the rotary ventilator when it comes to gambling. This story is growing legs.

 
The last thing any honest site / Casino wants is the question of rigged betting. They already have a house "advantage" if everything is on the up and up. If the odds are messed up by nefarious folks even the most addicted gambler will not bet.
 
Well, at least in the NBA, it looks like there is a massive amount fecal matter that's about to come in contact with the rotary ventilator when it comes to gambling. This story is growing legs.

I bet this goes beyond just the NBA.
 
You have a wild card in the sports coverage equation. The gambling web sites apparently have plenty of money. I wouldn't be surprised if they prop up some leagues just to have something for the gamblers to bet on.
The FanDuel free channel shows jai-alai from Florida, with live betting available. That sport is dead and buried. Nobody shows up to watch it, and its players have the reputation of being notoriously corrupt. But there are still gamblers around willing to wager on it, especially in Connecticut and Rhode Island, where it once was big but wound up being shut down. Enter FanDuel, which also offers betting on darts from Europe and horse racing from various American tracks.
 


Back
Top Bottom