Air America announces sale, Franken announces departure

[FightingIrish]

(note: This is reposted in part from my own blog.)

Huffington Post reports that Air America has reached a sale agreement. And it isn't to Richard French. The confirmed buyer is Stephen L. Green, a Manhattan real estate developer, who has signed a letter of intent and could finalize the purchase agreement this week. Also reported to be part of the deal is Green's brother, Mark, a New York Democrat who served as the city's public advocate in the 90s and ran for mayor against Michael Bloomberg in 2001.

Air America CEO Scott Elberg confirmed the sale. "This is a great thing, for our affiliates, the company, the audience and every employee in our organization."

In related news, midday host Al Franken confirmed on his show that he will be leaving the network, as he explores a run for the U.S. Senate from Minnesota. His last day will be February 14.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/01/29/exclusive-air-america-re_n_39897.html
http://ltradio.blogspot.com/2007/01/air-america-sold-to-new-york-real.html

 

[raccoonradio]

Minn. Star Tribune

http://www.startribune.com/535/story/966770.html

 

[FightingIrish]

Press release

http://www.airamerica.com/press

 

[kaufcom]

Steven L. Green is no light weight. He is the head of huge real estate investment firm SL Green Realty CorporationThe company owns and operates a premier portfolio of commercial office buildings --29 in Midtown Manhattan offering over 17 million square feet of office space. It has established a consistent track record of producing industry-leading returns while creating long-term value for its shareholders. See more about the AAR deal on TR

 

[Johnny Morgan]

That's fine that he has some business bona fides, but didn't all of the other AAR owners since it was founded?

The question isn't business success, but success with a horribly executed syndication arm, and/or mediocre (at best) radio (operations) management.

he can be a gazillionaire, but if all he does is throw money at a problem that hasn't been corrected (i.e., AAR just being bad radio execution and a bad radio business model), we'll see this bankruptcy happening again.

First thing, Mr. Green: hire some radio management people who know what the hell they're doing. Unless this is really just a partisan political vehicle, in which case...well, I dunno what. That's your own problem.

 

[radioman1380]

There they go, again. Another broadcast property owned by someone who has no knowledge of broadcasting. I've been told so many times over my nearly 40 years in broadcasting that, " non-broadcast owners make poor broadcast owners." When my broadcast partners and I wanted to buy a station...did we heed that advice? No...we had to learn the hard way, just like so many others. Unless they have someone with a broadcasting background, they'll, probably, use the network for a tax write-off or they'll just keep throwing money in a bottomless pit.

 

[AKLes]

Unless they have someone with a broadcasting background, they'll, probably, use the network for a tax write-off or they'll just keep throwing money in a bottomless pit.

If they are sincere in their progressive beliefs, I might think of many worse ways in which they might spend their money.

 

[FightingIrish]

There they go, again. Another broadcast property owned by someone who has no knowledge of broadcasting. I've been told so many times over my nearly 40 years in broadcasting that, " non-broadcast owners make poor broadcast owners." When my broadcast partners and I wanted to buy a station...did we heed that advice? No...we had to learn the hard way, just like so many others. Unless they have someone with a broadcasting background, they'll, probably, use the network for a tax write-off or they'll just keep throwing money in a bottomless pit.

Well, Clear Channel is being bought by two venture capital firms.

 

[evnlee]

There they go, again. Another broadcast property owned by someone who has no knowledge of broadcasting. I've been told so many times over my nearly 40 years in broadcasting that, " non-broadcast owners make poor broadcast owners." When my broadcast partners and I wanted to buy a station...did we heed that advice? No...we had to learn the hard way, just like so many others. Unless they have someone with a broadcasting background, they'll, probably, use the network for a tax write-off or they'll just keep throwing money in a bottomless pit.

Well, Clear Channel is being bought by two venture capital firms.

I guess the difference there is the presence of a bankruptcy judge :

 

[FightingIrish]

There they go, again. Another broadcast property owned by someone who has no knowledge of broadcasting. I've been told so many times over my nearly 40 years in broadcasting that, " non-broadcast owners make poor broadcast owners." When my broadcast partners and I wanted to buy a station...did we heed that advice? No...we had to learn the hard way, just like so many others. Unless they have someone with a broadcasting background, they'll, probably, use the network for a tax write-off or they'll just keep throwing money in a bottomless pit.

Well, Clear Channel is being bought by two venture capital firms.

I guess the difference there is the presence of a bankruptcy judge :

How so? That's not what we were talking about.

Get with the program.

 

[tbetz]

Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but if someone here knows, I'd like an answer to a question:

Has any radio talk venture (or any other major media venture, for that matter) attempting to provide an entire day's programming to a nationwide audience hit ever booked black ink in less than five years?

 

[FightingIrish]

Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but if someone here knows, I'd like an answer to a question:

Has any radio talk venture (or any other major media venture, for that matter) attempting to provide an entire day's programming to a nationwide audience hit ever booked black ink in less than five years?

Very, very few. The only example I can think of is USA Today. I think they saw the black after five years or so. And that was a venture that nobody thought would work, as newspapers were dying left and right at the time. Even people inside Gannett tried to torpedo it. But CEO Al Neuharth was pretty focused and adamant, and even succeeded with a dry run for the paper back in Florida in the 60s (Florida Today). Granted, the whole thing was propped up by the company's deep pockets, but USA Today became profitable in itself back in the late 80s (it launched in 1982). USA Today helped turn Gannett into a media monster, since before that, they were primarily an owner of small town rags and a few broadcast properties. Soon they were buying papers in major markets like Detroit and Phoenix. If you have a chance, check out Neuharth's autobiography, "Confessions of an S.O.B." It's a great read.

The Washington Times was started by Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church back in 1982. The main purpose of the new paper was to buy influence, and to do this, they targeted the GOP by slanting the paper's coverage heavily to the right. Think Pat Robertson or Newt Gingrich would have given that tax-evading cult leader the time of day if he didn't muscle his way in as an influence peddler? So far, Moon has sunk roughtly $2 billion into this thing, and lost about a billion on it. Ad sales are roughly half what other papers are doing. As far as I know, the paper is still not profitable, though they have branched out into magazines and such. It's all a tax write-off (and hopefully, Moon is managing his accounting adequately). The paper exists mostly to spread his message and get him in tight with conservative politicians.

As for other recent ventures, all the cable news channels hemmhoraged money for years. For that matter, every television startup in the past few decades has done this. FOX News was insanely expensive, as they initially bought their way onto cable systems at ridiculous rates. And don't forget the FOX Television Network. It took years for that to see black, especially with the high startup costs, incurred when they bought the old Metromedia stations (at a record price at the time, but these were very desirable stations). Also spent a fortune for NFL rights. Of course, this aggressive move worked for them, and put them on the map. By the mid-90s, station owners were drooling over FOX affiliation rights. Not sure when they finally saw profitablity, but I'm guessing it had to be well into the late 90s (FOX started in 1986). Still, I admire the way Murdoch, Diller et. al. built up that company.

Needless to say, any media startup is expensive. Anyone who expects it to be profitable out of the gate knows nothing about business.

 

[evnlee]

There they go, again. Another broadcast property owned by someone who has no knowledge of broadcasting. I've been told so many times over my nearly 40 years in broadcasting that, " non-broadcast owners make poor broadcast owners." When my broadcast partners and I wanted to buy a station...did we heed that advice? No...we had to learn the hard way, just like so many others. Unless they have someone with a broadcasting background, they'll, probably, use the network for a tax write-off or they'll just keep throwing money in a bottomless pit.

Well, Clear Channel is being bought by two venture capital firms.

I guess the difference there is the presence of a bankruptcy judge :

How so? That's not what we were talking about.

Get with the program.

ummm, the Clear Channel buy out gave away only the smaller market stations and thier TV affiliates. They keep all the major markets, plus thier lucrative billboards and concert promotions branch.

The 'venture capitalists' bought in @ $26.7 billion for the company, which includes the assumption of $8 billion in debt.

This is a bit different then Err Amerika, which was being forced to beg a judge to approve the new buyers, due to the amount of debt involved, for the whole enchilada. And the new buyers of CC are looking to buy the Tribune corp, which means they would have to part with some of those stations. So those 'venture capitalists' are going to treat it as a business, not an ideological stink tank.

Hey, who knows? Maybe the new 'progressive' owners of AAR can make it work and actually produce some $$$. But the way in which they are going to have to do that is going to ruffle some liberal feathers. Gonna be fun to watch

 

[dampier]

This is a bit different then Err Amerika, which was being forced to beg a judge to approve the new buyers, due to the amount of debt involved, for the whole enchilada. And the new buyers of CC are looking to buy the Tribune corp, which means they would have to part with some of those stations. So those 'venture capitalists' are going to treat it as a business, not an ideological stink tank.

Where is your evidence that AAR is begging a judge for anything. Sounds like more wishful made-up-thinking from the Unequalizer crowd. Bottom line, AAR carries on.

Hey, who knows? Maybe the new 'progressive' owners of AAR can make it work and actually produce some $$$. But the way in which they are going to have to do that is going to ruffle some liberal feathers. Gonna be fun to watch

Yeah, more uninformed opinions. Why should any feathers have to be ruffled to make Air America a success? There are a lot of us quite happy with the increasing choice we have among left-leaning shows. Stephanie Miller hardly ruffled feathers in replacing the dreary Springer on our local station. Bill Press replacing the Young Turks didn't cause unrest in the streets, and Lionel isn't causing a revolution (although he's asking for one these days).

When there is no drama to report, it's easier to make it up, which is what the usual critics corner around here does.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

Where is your evidence that AAR is begging a judge for anything.

The sale of assets has to be approved by the bankruptcy court. It's not actually AAR that's doing it, but AAR's (Piquant, LLC's) creditors who are requesting that the court approve the sale.

Begging may not be appropriate, but if they want to complete the sale and get any value for their claims, they best make their best presentation of why this should be Okayed to the bankruptcy judge.

 

[evnlee]

Where is your evidence that AAR is begging a judge for anything.

The sale of assets has to be approved by the bankruptcy court. It's not actually AAR that's doing it, but AAR's (Piquant, LLC's) creditors who are requesting that the court approve the sale.

Begging may not be appropriate, but if they want to complete the sale and get any value for their claims, they best make their best presentation of why this should be Okayed to the bankruptcy judge.

Thanks for the clarification