M
mrtexmex2007
Guest
I read this on the top of this page but I really didnt understand it!!
-
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
B
bubbaburger
Guest
the banks that make the loans for the CC deal don't want to keep them... which should prove that they are not worth having! Investors that usually buy these type of loans (along with mortgage backed securities) are just figuring this out for some reason. So the banks would rather pay a half a billion dollars in break-up fees, rather than go through financing the deal. The deal is dead and CCU will remain a public company.
Plenty of info about this today on any of the business wires/news sites. It's like eating the famous 72 oz. steak. Not gonna happen in just a few swallows.
This is probably why we haven't heard anything publicly about deals for the CC Houston divestitures. If the corporate sale is in trouble any movement on the spinoffs has probably been back burnered for the time being...which means those stations will be twisting in the wind for a while longer.
This is somewhat similar to the previous CC spinoff situation in 2000 when the El Dorado deal fell apart.
This is probably why we haven't heard anything publicly about deals for the CC Houston divestitures. If the corporate sale is in trouble any movement on the spinoffs has probably been back burnered for the time being...which means those stations will be twisting in the wind for a while longer.
This is somewhat similar to the previous CC spinoff situation in 2000 when the El Dorado deal fell apart.
stan said:
I think it means jus the opposite. CCU is a humongous cash machine, throwing off lots of money and with only a small debt load. When it goes private, it will have a large debt service and have to be very prudent financially.
DavidEduardo said:
If RadioOne is getting today, $137 million for a LA station, when SBS paid $250 million for it's LA station nearly 10 years ago....
The reality is that 18 months ago, the CC deal was plausible, today. It looks like it cheaper to litigate. Sue the bankers for turning you down. The deal may not be dead, but suing the bank doesn't seem prudent, financially or otherwise.
If it was a cash machine..... there would be no issues.
radioeye said:
It's a huge cash machine. The issues have to do with lending in times of bank crisis and not with the profitability of CCU.
DavidEduardo said:
Banking doesn't work that way, you've got to have sufficient equity to protect the loan, CC doesn't. Also, a huge cash machine presumes that you can pay the debt, not so in this case. Wish it as you may..... the mega bankers don't agree with you. Otherwise, it's would be done deal.
The banking crisis has to do with the people/companies that can't pay their bills, not companies that are hugh cash machines.
The new CC would be highly leveraged, so much so that bankers would have at risk more money than the current market value of the assets. CC would have to dispose of assets to reduce the debt, at fire sale prices. None of this is news.
K
kendro
Guest
CCU isn't a cash machine. CCU is neither leveraged nor will it ever be leveraged again. It is a folly. Follies make good hobbies but you never bet the farm on a game of horseshoes.
European banking laws are MUCH different than ours.
There is another way they can get the deal backed but the morning news would be from Dubai.
European banking laws are MUCH different than ours.
There is another way they can get the deal backed but the morning news would be from Dubai.
radioeye said:
As this has developed in the last 24 hours, it is apparent tht the equity is there. What is at issue is who gets the proceeds of the sell off of assets like the non-domestic divisions... the banks want it to go to the loans, the investment bankers want to take it themselves.
The banking crisis has to do with risk. When you loan to people who can never pay back what you are giving them, you are taking uacceptable and unsustainable risk.
DavidEduardo said:
I don't know what news your following, but it's wrong. Your logic is flawed and pays no respect to reality. Today, the SA court ruled that the banks cannot interfer with the sale, but did not rule that it must fund.
The Clear Channel assets are not worth what the were worth 18 months ago, that is the simple truth.
- Status