• 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

Byron Allen gets the Colbert timeslot

With places like Georgia trying to get movies from LA...

California has been fighting back for a few years now:


and Computer Graphics in movies there will be unused space somewhere in LA.

Yes, but would that space fit the needs of a late-night show? Office space for a staff of 150-200, post-production in-house, sufficient space for performances and audience? And if you're doing a show with an audience, that stage needs to be accessible and have sufficient parking.

A stage deep into the lot at Paramount isn't going to cover that.

But back to the original thread subject, where is the the accounting that shows $40 million a year loses?

It doesn't exist and the only people who seem to believe it are the people who are happy Colbert's gone and CBS is being re-directed.
 
What happens if Allen can't pay?
Byron?

Not gonna happen. Essential pull-quote:

In 2023, he offered Disney a reported $10 billion for ABC and some of its cable networks, and the following year bid $30 billion for Paramount Global. He also made plays for Tegna and BET.

None of his offers succeeded, prompting skepticism about his ability to finance such deals. Allen Media Group is wholly owned by the entrepreneur.

Allen dismissed such concerns. “I raised the money to buy the Weather Channel in one day,” he said. “There’s trillions of dollars looking for really good executives and really good deals. I have no problem raising capital.”

The Times viewed multiple letters from private equity firms and banks. Several indicated that Allen had financial backing on the deal to buy BET, and another showed he had $4 billion in funds to back the purchase of Paramount assets.

 
Allen media is privately held so anything we say is just guessing, but according to Wikipedia June 2025 he announce publicly that he was "exploring strategic" options and planed to sell TV stations in 21 markets due to "financial woes and rising debt.".

Sometimes it doesn't work out. Ted Turner's growth wasn't without some bumps. But no risk no gain.
 
Allen media is privately held so anything we say is just guessing, but according to Wikipedia June 2025 he announce publicly that he was "exploring strategic" options and planed to sell TV stations in 21 markets due to "financial woes and rising debt.".

And more recently (April of this year), Allen Media bought seven stations from Gray TV (who bought those 21 stations in 2025):


Look, anything can happen in business. But the check he writes to CBS for 11:35 at night every year is lunch money.
 
And more recently (April of this year), Allen Media bought seven stations from Gray TV (who bought those 21 stations in 2025):

This press release is from 2021. Not sure if maybe you linked the wrong one.

As far as I know, Allen Media is still working to liquidate his TV licenses while the selling is good, and Gray recently closed on an acquisition of 8 or so TV stations from Allen Media, mostly in Illinois, Indiana and Mississippi.
 
Once again, the contract for The Late Show included the studio and the name. It was a package. The way out is to not renew. That's what they did.,
What if they re-named the show to not use "The Late Show" name, but a new different name and rent a cheeper place to do the new show from?
 
What if they re-named the show to not use "The Late Show" name, but a new different name and rent a cheeper place to do the new show from?

That would be a complete roll of the dice. You'd still have millions of dollars in expenses producing a cheaper show and no guarantee that the ratings would drive advertising to a break-even, much less a profit. With Byron, their expenses are as close to zero as it gets and what he pays them is very nearly pure profit.
 

Yep. As a former TV programmer who passed on Byron's shows 20 years ago, the essential weakness is that there's nothing to make you eager to watch it. It's least-objectionable-alternative stuff ("Nothing else on that I wanted to watch"), which used to work in the seven-channel days, and even in the 50-channel days, but there's just too many other ways to spend half an hour.

But---again---none of this matters to CBS. They sold the time and he paid for it. The CBS owned stations and affiliates might make some noise because this will absolutely drive down the spot prices in the local breaks, but I don't expect CBS to care, much less respond.
 


Back
Top Bottom