There's also time value of money, opportunity costs, and carrying costs to consider. In non-MBA terms, could you do something better with the money than keeping it where it's at, and how much will you have to sink each month into a non- or under-performing asset, or how much would you have to put into that asset to get it performing again (with no guarantees)?
Maybe Cumulus offered them a buck-fifty and I look silly. But Lincoln certainly looks silly for not properly maintaining an asset they are trying to sell at some point.
Your points are all valid, but I'm not sure they're applicable to this situation.
Last year, Star 94 was the #3 biller with revenue in excess of $24 million, and that's considerably over performing compared to its share of audience. When you say there are time, the value of money, opportunity costs and carrying costs to consider, I'm not sure what they could do with the money that yields more than what they're doing. And while Star could very well become an under-performing asset, it hasn't to this point.
You say that Lincoln looks silly for not maintaining an asset they are trying to sell. Maybe the station made a big mistake with The Morning Mess. But if they did, it certainly wasn't because they weren't trying to maintain the asset; it's because somebody made a poor programming decision. They've certainly invested this year in imaging.