-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Mark Mays says "Free radio is struggling". Seeks expanded ownership.
- Thread starter SaltyDog
- Start date
M
mwebster
Guest
MAYBE MAYS WANTS TO SELL - NOT BUY
The more I think about it, the more it seems Mark Mays is not interested in buying a couple of additional radio stations in a few large markets - even if other operators were interested in selling good properties.
Clear Channel's financials have not been that good in the past year; neither has stock performance. The company had to take a $4 Billion (with a B) write-down becuase of properties for which they over-paid or which they had over-valued.
If this measure goes through, the market value of major market stations will increase. Maybe Mays wants to SELL. Maybe he's more interested in more cash, than more stations.
Think about it.
The more I think about it, the more it seems Mark Mays is not interested in buying a couple of additional radio stations in a few large markets - even if other operators were interested in selling good properties.
Clear Channel's financials have not been that good in the past year; neither has stock performance. The company had to take a $4 Billion (with a B) write-down becuase of properties for which they over-paid or which they had over-valued.
If this measure goes through, the market value of major market stations will increase. Maybe Mays wants to SELL. Maybe he's more interested in more cash, than more stations.
Think about it.
Clear Logic?
> ...The company had to take a $4 Billion (with a B)
> write-down becuase of properties for which they
> over-paid or which they had over-valued.
>
> If this measure goes through, the market value of major
> market stations will increase. Maybe Mays wants to SELL.
> Maybe he's more interested in more cash, than more stations.
If you're right, it would indicate a really interesting thought process on the part of Clear Channel:
1. We had to take a big write-down because we seriously overpaid for a bunch of radio stations.
2. Let's see if we can get the FCC to raise ownership limits so we can create a market for more radio stations in the largest markets.
3. That market will drive up the price of radio stations in those markets - which will make them even MORE over-valued than they are now.
4. Then we can either (A) REALLY overpay to acquire more stations, or (B) Talk somebody else into REALLY overpaying to acquire more stations, which will drive their stock down and make ours look more attractive.
Is Clear Channel capable of such reasoning? I'm afraid so.
I'm telling you, the only answer is to protect them from themselves. CUT the maximum number of stations and force them to sell off the ones that they have mismanaged into unprofitability.
Besides, the irony that Mark Mays would be the one who opened the Pandora's Box of resetting station limits is too delicious to pass up.
> ...The company had to take a $4 Billion (with a B)
> write-down becuase of properties for which they
> over-paid or which they had over-valued.
>
> If this measure goes through, the market value of major
> market stations will increase. Maybe Mays wants to SELL.
> Maybe he's more interested in more cash, than more stations.
If you're right, it would indicate a really interesting thought process on the part of Clear Channel:
1. We had to take a big write-down because we seriously overpaid for a bunch of radio stations.
2. Let's see if we can get the FCC to raise ownership limits so we can create a market for more radio stations in the largest markets.
3. That market will drive up the price of radio stations in those markets - which will make them even MORE over-valued than they are now.
4. Then we can either (A) REALLY overpay to acquire more stations, or (B) Talk somebody else into REALLY overpaying to acquire more stations, which will drive their stock down and make ours look more attractive.
Is Clear Channel capable of such reasoning? I'm afraid so.
I'm telling you, the only answer is to protect them from themselves. CUT the maximum number of stations and force them to sell off the ones that they have mismanaged into unprofitability.
Besides, the irony that Mark Mays would be the one who opened the Pandora's Box of resetting station limits is too delicious to pass up.
Re: Clear Logic?
Much of the "overpayment" was in stock, not cash. I don't see CC being in that much of a buying mode (though they'd probably take WLS and its flavor-of-the-month FM if they could). They could be selling smaller market properties, we've seen that happen in a few cases (once they've tower-danced everyrthing they can into Ohio's larger markets, I look for CC-Mansfield, Lima, Chillicothe, etc. to go by the wayside.)
Much of the "overpayment" was in stock, not cash. I don't see CC being in that much of a buying mode (though they'd probably take WLS and its flavor-of-the-month FM if they could). They could be selling smaller market properties, we've seen that happen in a few cases (once they've tower-danced everyrthing they can into Ohio's larger markets, I look for CC-Mansfield, Lima, Chillicothe, etc. to go by the wayside.)
Z
zaxxons1
Guest
Re: Translating Mark Mays...make life easy for 800lb gorilla
> > AM Radio would have been "saved" by somebody, if not Rush,
>
> > maybe Chuck Harder, or any of a dozen other people who
> > started syndicating right around the mid-80s when
> satellite
> > time became available.
Maybe ... but if you've listened to Chuck Harder in the last five years, you wound most definitely **NOT** categorize his show as "good radio."
I'm listening to him right now discuss with an epidemiologist (sp?) the threat of the so-called "avian" or "bird" flu, which DNA researchers in the past two weeks have identified as a variant of the deadly 1918 Spanish flu that killed 50 million worldwide.
This MD makes a powerful case for quick action on this potential public health catastrophe, and what is Chuck Harder's reaction?
1) There are 40,000-plus miles of fences on interstate highways and it's treason that our borders have not been closed off;
2) D.C. is full of "I've Got Mine" elitist thugs whose attitude towards the "yahoos in the hustings" is "Let them eat cake";
And so on, and so forth ...
BAD RADIO! BAD RADIO!
Why oh why oh why oh why is Chuck Harder still on the air? Especially considering the fact that he's no longer on any commercial AM, FM or SW station?
You need special equipment (computer, satellite dish) to pick him up.
A challenge: If there are any pro-Chuck Harder folks out there, let them come forth and argue his case. In the spirit of Gordon Sinclair in his 1973 hit "The Americans," c'mon, you, let's hear it! Tell me Chuck Harder is the Second Coming of Marconi or Thomas Edison. Tell me I'm wrong for thinking he's a boob.
Give me a real reason for supporting him, and maybe, just maybe, I'll reconsider my anti-Chuck Harder stance.
Good luck!
> > AM Radio would have been "saved" by somebody, if not Rush,
>
> > maybe Chuck Harder, or any of a dozen other people who
> > started syndicating right around the mid-80s when
> satellite
> > time became available.
Maybe ... but if you've listened to Chuck Harder in the last five years, you wound most definitely **NOT** categorize his show as "good radio."
I'm listening to him right now discuss with an epidemiologist (sp?) the threat of the so-called "avian" or "bird" flu, which DNA researchers in the past two weeks have identified as a variant of the deadly 1918 Spanish flu that killed 50 million worldwide.
This MD makes a powerful case for quick action on this potential public health catastrophe, and what is Chuck Harder's reaction?
1) There are 40,000-plus miles of fences on interstate highways and it's treason that our borders have not been closed off;
2) D.C. is full of "I've Got Mine" elitist thugs whose attitude towards the "yahoos in the hustings" is "Let them eat cake";
And so on, and so forth ...
BAD RADIO! BAD RADIO!
Why oh why oh why oh why is Chuck Harder still on the air? Especially considering the fact that he's no longer on any commercial AM, FM or SW station?
You need special equipment (computer, satellite dish) to pick him up.
A challenge: If there are any pro-Chuck Harder folks out there, let them come forth and argue his case. In the spirit of Gordon Sinclair in his 1973 hit "The Americans," c'mon, you, let's hear it! Tell me Chuck Harder is the Second Coming of Marconi or Thomas Edison. Tell me I'm wrong for thinking he's a boob.
Give me a real reason for supporting him, and maybe, just maybe, I'll reconsider my anti-Chuck Harder stance.
Good luck!
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.