Is there ANY hope for radio

[jamesh]

I'll start by cutting my 3 million dollar a year private jet allowance.

Maybe you don't know, but Bob Pittman is more than a CEO. He's also an investor. He poured millions of his own personal fortune into the company. So he's playing with his own money too. Not just Bain & Lee.

If you lose 424 million you probably shouldn't have taken 3 million that year to fly exclusively by private jet-that's not good business.Fly coach. If you are running Apple and have no debt and 180 billion in cash, buy yourself 3 jets. Oh and he doesn't have money in it, his equity LLC does- Pilot Group LLC-in other words more borrowed, levered money no matter what you think it is.

You fail to grasp the simple math Biga...CC is not Clear Channel it's really Credit Card for private equity-that's how it was devised when the deal was struck.

You are well versed in CC dogma, i. e. Koolaid. Keep drinking my friend, I can read a 10-Q (big 8 remember) and they WILL go bankrupt. You say Pandora may-they don't have the debt issues CC does-not even close. Learn to read a 10-Q, then get back to me.

 

[TheBigA]

If you lose 424 million you probably shouldn't take 3 million annually to fly exclusively by private jet-that's not good business. If you are running Apple and have no debt and 180 billion in cash, buy yourself 3 jets.

You realize the governor of South Carolina gets a private plane too, right? Your state has twice as much debt as CC.

 

[SaltyDog]

... and they WILL go bankrupt.

I don't pay as much attention to Clear Channel as you do but I've long expected that they or Cumulus or some big radio company will go bankrupt but so what? Lots of companies do. Either they reorganize and keep on going or they liquidate and someone else borrows money, but a lot less, to buy them and then there is lower debt. Isn't that what you want?

Personally, I don't want anything because I'm not one of their investors.

 

[TheBigA]

Oh and he doesn't have money in it, his equity LLC does- Pilot Group LLC-in other words more borrowed, levered money no matter what you think it is.

You're gonna have to show me a source on that, because every report I saw said it was a PERSONAL investment, and not through Pilot Group.

 

[DudeFan]

The investment couldn't have been through Pilot Group because Pilot had attributable interests in Double O and Barrington.

 

[SaltyDog]

The investment couldn't have been through Pilot Group because Pilot had attributable interests in Double O and Barrington.

I'm no CPA and I'm not real well-versed in 10-Q's and such but I can read a little bit. It looks to this amateur like the investment was made... well, here's what the 8-K of 10.6.11 says:

The Employment Agreement amends that certain Stock Purchase Agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”), dated November 15, 2010, by and among CCMH, Clear Channel Capital IV, LLC, Clear Channel Capital V, L.P., and Pittman CC LLC with respect to certain repurchase rights in favor of CCMH and its affiliates relating to 706,215 shares of CCMH Class A Common Stock (the “Purchased
Shares”) purchased by Pittman CC LLC, an entity controlled by Mr. Pittman, in November 2010.

Does that not mean it was Pittman's dough? It's late for me and I'm a morning person.

 

[jamesh]

The investment couldn't have been through Pilot Group because Pilot had attributable interests in Double O and Barrington.

I'm no CPA and I'm not real well-versed in 10-Q's and such but I can read a little bit. It looks to this amateur like the investment was made... well, here's what the 8-K of 10.6.11 says:

The Employment Agreement amends that certain Stock Purchase Agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”), dated November 15, 2010, by and among CCMH, Clear Channel Capital IV, LLC, Clear Channel Capital V, L.P., and Pittman CC LLC with respect to certain repurchase rights in favor of CCMH and its affiliates relating to 706,215 shares of CCMH Class A Common Stock (the “Purchased
Shares”) purchased by Pittman CC LLC, an entity controlled by Mr. Pittman, in November 2010.

Does that not mean it was Pittman's dough? It's late for me and I'm a morning person.

Actually an LLC makes it a corporation OR entity separate from him. Since I can't expect you to understand tax law because it is tortuously dull I will refer you to this from the IRS website...didn't see this from his personal checking account though he could have easily done that-it's another LLC which may be him or others under his name. He does not have to disclose that to you or I but it was not "personal" for tax purposes. It was a Limited Liability Company and "controlled by him" just like Pilot but Pilot is not him. Anyone can read a press release-sometimes you have to look under the hood.

"Depending on elections made by the LLC and the number of members, the IRS will treat an LLC as either a corporation, partnership, or as part of the LLC’s owner’s tax return (a “disregarded entity”). Specifically, a domestic LLC with at least two members is classified as a partnership for federal income tax purposes unless it files Form 8832 and affirmatively elects to be treated as a corporation. And an LLC with only one member is treated as an entity disregarded as separate from its owner for income tax purposes (but as a separate entity for purposes of employment tax and certain excise taxes), unless it files Form 8832 and affirmatively elects to be treated as a corporation."

http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Limited-Liability-Company-(LLC)

I know this is dull stuff, so what about the 3 million a year for private jet leasing when you are losing 424 million?

 

[SaltyDog]

Actually an LLC makes it a corporation OR entity separate from him. Since I can't expect you to understand tax law because it is tortuously dull I will refer you to this from the IRS website...

Yeah, I get what an LLC is but as I said earlier, the distinction can be nothing more than a piece of paper. I met a client for lunch today. He's an LLC of one. My business is a proprietorship. No one doing business with either of us can tell the difference because we're just two guys in dissimilar businesses.

In a previous post you wrote:

Oh and he doesn't have money in it, his equity LLC does- Pilot Group LLC in other words more borrowed, levered money no matter what you think it is.

So it's not Pilot Group LLC which you stated earlier was in the 10-Q. If Pittman LLC isn't highly leveraged, then your concern (I don't know why) about leverage is not applicable.

I know this is dull stuff, so what about the 3 million a year for private jet leasing when you are losing 424 million?

It's fine with me. I fly coach myself but that was your answer to my question to what you'd do as CEO. I'd say you're only one minute into the job and you just saved less than $3 million (flying still isn't free) and you have more than $421 million to go. If you don't know how to close that gap don't feel bad because neither do I.

 

[TheBigA]

I know this is dull stuff, so what about the 3 million a year for private jet leasing when you are losing 424 million?

I'm not sure what the point is. Would you like us to vote on it, like some reality TV show? Would you like the government to step in and strip him of his plane? Like most companies, this one has a Board of Directors, who oversee how the business is run. The lenders all sit on the Board and have a lot to say on all this. If none of the people with vested interests in the success of the business have a problem, why should I? It seems to me that people in this country feel it's their right to judge others, and point fingers. Look at YOU! What a wasteful clod you are! Personally, I have better things to do with my time. Any one who works for that company knows the situation. It's been very well publicized. So no one is walking in to some situation without warning. As I've tried to point out, there's nothing this company is doing that state and federal governments aren't also doing. No wonder some choose to put their money in offshore banks.

 

[DudeFan]

And frankly, the only people that have a say are the Board of Directors and the Stockholders.

Rightly or wrongly, that is what they chose to do and they can always change their minds.

You or I can guess and double guess their decisions, but we don't have skin in the game and we don't have all the information.

Don't care for their programming? Staffing levels? That ship has sailed long ago. Still don't like it? Don't listen. Don't buy from them. Don't patronize their advertisers.

 

[jamesh]

I know this is dull stuff, so what about the 3 million a year for private jet leasing when you are losing 424 million?

I'm not sure what the point is. Would you like us to vote on it, like some reality TV show? Would you like the government to step in and strip him of his plane? Like most companies, this one has a Board of Directors, who oversee how the business is run. The lenders all sit on the Board and have a lot to say on all this. If none of the people with vested interests in the success of the business have a problem, why should I? It seems to me that people in this country feel it's their right to judge others, and point fingers. Look at YOU! What a wasteful clod you are! Personally, I have better things to do with my time. Any one who works for that company knows the situation. It's been very well publicized. So no one is walking in to some situation without warning. As I've tried to point out, there's nothing this company is doing that state and federal governments aren't also doing. No wonder some choose to put their money in offshore banks.

Yes BigA you have better things to do..hilarious. You have posted here 10574 times. Let's say you take 8 minutes to read and respond each time on average. That's almost 176 8 hour work days you have spent posting on ONE website's message boards or 35 weeks of work. Talk about carpal tunnel! And you speak of judgement and call me a name?

Who is the "wasteful clod" now?

IF you have a job you should be fired for wasting company time.

 

[TheBigA]

Who is the "wasteful clod"

And who is the bully?

 

[Tom Wells]

But let's spend a few minutes considering why corporations need only "truly" serve the needs of the the shareholders.
This particular myopia ignores the STAKEholders and the public at large, and specifically disregards the publc nature of
OTA services, granted for use and profit potential with some measure of dedication to public service expected.

Corporations cannot be expected to behave with the propriety of a grandma who has suddenly an extra 8 guests for dinner.
Because... such responsibility has been "protected away" by legalese in US law to give corporations exactly this advantage
for market advantage, originally intended to protect investment. but now used as a advantageous weapon.

 

[SaltyDog]

But let's spend a few minutes considering why corporations need only "truly" serve the needs of the the shareholders.
This particular myopia ignores the STAKEholders and the public at large, and specifically disregards the publc nature of
OTA services, granted for use and profit potential with some measure of dedication to public service expected.

A "stakeholder" would be pretty much anyone who claims to have an interest. I'm no corporation but I don't recognize any such rights. It sounds nice, but I see no practical application. I'd have to take into account the opinion of the guy who cuts the grass at the tower site. The FCC is charged with seeing to it that the public is being served so if you think the stations aren't doing that, then it's not the fault of "corporations" but of the FCC. This goes back to what I said earlier. How you think about these kinds of things probably has a lot to do with political views more than it does broadcasting.

Corporations cannot be expected to behave with the propriety of a grandma who has suddenly an extra 8 guests for dinner.
Because... such responsibility has been "protected away" by legalese in US law to give corporations exactly this advantage
for market advantage, originally intended to protect investment. but now used as a advantageous weapon.

Seriously, I've read this part over and over and I can't make much out of it. It sounds like you are saying that U.S. law has been re-written to eliminate the need for broadcasters to serve stakeholders... but then, how does this give anyone a market-by-market advantage?

 

[Tom Wells]

Elimination of need for regard or responsibility to stakeholders is A HUGE economic advantage, but karmic hell embodied.
The guy who mows the grass at the tower site is an excellent example of a stakeholder.
He has somehow made himself available to do a job that really needs doing, and now depends on this activity
for economic well-being. But there is no law to protect the interests of stakeholders.

Corporate law only protects the interests of SHAREholders.
You are correct!
US law WAS changed in the 1870s to eliminate corporations from needing to consider any responsibility to stakeholders .

This was way before any OTA services or wireless.
When the FRC/FCC began to regulate "radio" and turn it into the commercial realm we "enjoy" today, a hefty
consideration was placed upon the ability to "serve" the "listeners". No mention of a concept of a market, though it was understood.
The idea of a "market", as in "protection", as in "local", WAS known to business, but not a given in the FCC's granting of a
license for a radio station. It was presumed to be covered in the granting of use of a limited resource with an expectation of
a determined responsibility by the broadcaster to serve the public, not a debt collector.

It's interesting that you say you cannot recognize the rights of stakeholders.
Stakeholders are much like children.
Explain why you feel no regards for those who have an (any) interest....why would money be the ONLY consideration?

I don't see this as a divisive communism/capitalism political issue, because I reject -isms anyway.

There must be some middle ground to "serve". If it's all about satisfying the hunger of a corporation, let's just die already.