Tribune to sell its Big Three???

[rch66]

I just read an articel talking about a bidding war between two groups vieing for all of Tribunes assets, including all TV stations, Newspapers and the Cubs. This would allow either group to have control of the LA Times and sell the rest of the properties off. I agree with what some of you have said that Gannet would be a perfect buyer for a number the Tribune properties...however in some markets, like here in Denver, that would not be possiable, since Gannett just bought KTVD channel 20 to go along with KUSA-9. However, fox which owns channel 31, whcich is faced with the problem of being carried on channel 13 by Comcast here, I know would love to get on a stronger channel like Tribune owned KWGN channel 2. Plus remeber that KWGN is the third oldest TV station in the Tribune cluster. So while Gannett may be a good bet for most markets...it won't work in all - including Denver.

Gannett could buy the group, then divest a large number of stations that won't fit well overall. (for example - Federated/macy's bought out the May Co., only to divest so many buildings, and the Lord&Taylor chain)

Or, they can buy out stations with another major broadcasting group, with two choosing which they'll keep (for example - Comcast and Time Warner buying out Adelphia, swapping assets - deciding who gets what)

Maybe it could be a CBS and Gannett deal. As CBS has an interest where CW has clearance - they should be involved.

Gannett picks up:
LA-KTLA(from Tribune)
Chicago-WGN (from Tribune)
Denver-KWGN (from Tribune)

CBS guarantees CW affiliation for KTLA, WGN, etc - (therefore, The CW won't go to KCAL, a lesser watched station). Couple years later - Gannett becomes a minority owner of CW.

CBS picks up:
NY-WPIX(from Tribune); maybe this one could go to Gannett; however, it would be a shaky relation (for the CW and its clearances) if Gannett is given the green light for having all the top3 clearances for CW, a network they have no ownership in. Atleast Tribune had a previous rapport with Time Warner. So, CBS should buy WPIX. It would be interesting to see what would happen to the WPIX morning news as CBS Early Show would compete right against it.
CBS from Gannett:
DC-WUSA(from Gannett)/WDCW(from Tribune);
Atlanta - maybe WXIA and WATL, flip them to CBS and CW; Meredith's WGCL given compensation then changes to NBC affiliation; WUPA sold to Fox or Meredith - converts to MyNetwork affiliate. CBS will then have a CBS O&Os in all the top 10 markets, except Houston.

As for Denver, maybe Gannett could sells its NBC affiliate to Hearst-Argyle or another chain, to prevent the overlap, and by that generate some cash, while keeping KWGN.

The other mainly Fox, often UHF or smaller market CW stations could be kept or divested, by Gannett, and dealt on a market by market basis.

 

[Markxxx]

On the WGN Noon new businesss, the reported Gannett was not interested in the TV stations but only the newspapers. This seems a bit odd since Gannett isn't known for it's big city newspapers.

Crain's Chicago Business says the Tribune calls it's offers so far, "very disapointing."

The one thing I don't get is Crain's reported Tribune and NewsCorp were discussing options but so far NewsCorp is only interested in Newsday.

 

[KeithE4]

On the WGN Noon new businesss, the reported Gannett was not interested in the TV stations but only the newspapers. This seems a bit odd since Gannett isn't known for it's big city newspapers.

AFAIK, the only big-city newspapers it owns are the Indianapolis Star and the Arizona Socialist Republic, neither of which is anything to write home about.

In fact, the Repulsive is probably the worst major-market newspaper in the US, both due to their lack of journalistic skills and the fact that it looks like a 4-year-old is the editor (a huge amount of factual errors and typos in both the dead-tree and online editions). Their incestuous relationship with co-owned KPNX-TV is a local joke - even moreso than the Chicago Tribune/WGN "synergy."

 

[tjthedj]

The Times-Picayune in New Orleans is the worst, undisputably. Bad editing, misspellings, and more make it so. This was WAY prior to Katrina.

 

[Tim-In-Houston]

As for Denver, maybe Gannett could sells its NBC affiliate to Hearst-Argyle or another chain, to prevent the overlap, and by that generate some cash, while keeping KWGN.

Why in the world would Gannett sell KUSA and keep KWGN? KUSA is one of the few bright spots in the Gannett broadcasting crown.

 

[zumahans]

These armchair prognosticators are engaging in some none-too-well-informed speculation.

"I know, I know! Tribune and Gannett will incur enormous tax liabilities to balance the chessboard. Knight to kings bishop 3."

 

[Morgan Wick]

It would be interesting to see FOX buy WGN as even though it's a VHF would they transfer FOX to it? Or would they transfer WFLD call letters and all to channel 9. Channel 32 is well branded and strong as FOX.

Had the history of television gone down a bit differently, Fox could have been WGN at the start. WGN had been Chicago's DuMont affiliate but it was WFLD that was owned by Metromedia, the company that got started by picking up DuMont's old O&Os when the network folded and which contributed all its stations to Fox to get the network started. Fox could have easily gone to Tribune instead, and picked up WPIX, KTLA and WGN as its Big 3 stations. Perhaps more intriguingly, WFLD was itself owned by a completely different company until 1983, and Chris-Craft never owned WPWR, so it was an interested bidder as well. WGN was also a victim of happenstance; at the time it had fallen behind WFLD for a spell at a bad time, and had WFLD not taken advantage of WGN underestimating it it might have been sold to someone completely different, and possibly used for crap like home shopping (with WCIU having a Big Six affiliation).

In fact, had Paramount been more willing to play ball and show DuMont programming on its non-DuMont owned stations (Paramount was the primary financial backer of DuMont, and a lot of its decisions seemed more like it was trying to kill it), Fox (or DuMont?) could be on channel 2 today! Paramount owned the forerunner of Channel 2 (then on channel 4) until the division that owned it bought ABC and thus inherited channel 7. Channel 4 was sold to CBS, which it had always carried; CBS was the only Big Three network not to own its Chicago station until this transaction. Had Paramount forced off CBS, the network would have had two options: be carried on WGN or launch on channel 11. (This occured in 1953 and WTTW did not launch until 1955, but the FCC may have already reserved 11 for educational use. UHF was basically lower than shit until the 1960s. Incidentially, Paramount also owned but did not show DuMont on KTLA; had this happened, or KTTV not been sold to Metromedia in 1963, Channel 5 might have been as linked with Fox/DuMont as 2 is CBS, 4 is NBC, and 7 is ABC. Playing armchair dealmaker and what-if-izer is fun!)

Maybe Warner Bros will decide to start a real station division (not just WTBS).

Can't happen right now, since a rule still exists which prohibits common ownership of broadcast TV stations and cable systems in the same market. It's why Time Warner doesn't have any cable systems in Atlanta -- they would have been forced to sell off WTBS, which would have been a problem until recently, since WTBS used to be a Superstation that provided the TBS cable/satellite feed. Now, I think it is the other way around, with the TBS programming being rebroadcast on WTBS.

Repeal of the cable/broadcast TV crossownership rule was on the table in the FCC's ownership deregulation proceeding in 2003 -- and ended up in the ditch along with the rest of the proposed rules changes as a result of a massive public uproar. Between that and the recent Democratic takeover of the House and Senate, I doubt that rule will be going away.

Jeez, I didn't know that. Imagine if that Comcast takeover of Disney had been successful a while back? Either Comcast would have had to sell (or split off) the cable systems that allowed them to consider the purchase or they would have had to sell (or split off) the ABC O&Os and maybe ABC itself.

On the WGN Noon new businesss, the reported Gannett was not interested in the TV stations but only the newspapers. This seems a bit odd since Gannett isn't known for it's big city newspapers.

Maybe it wants to be. It is already known for USA Today, so I wouldn't put it past them.

 

[ixnay]

AFAIK, the only big-city newspapers it owns are the Indianapolis Star and the Arizona Socialist Republic, neither of which is anything to write home about.

I guess Cincinnati http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=CINCI and Detroit http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage aren't big cities anymore.

Here's the list of Gannett papers: http://www.gannett.com/web/gan013.htm

ixnay

 

[ShawnHill1]

Isn't David Geffen involved with the controversy-ridden Atlanta Spirit group that owns the Atlanta Hawks and Thrashers?

You're probably thinking of Steve Belkin, one of the owners that sued the other owners of the group (one of whom is Ted Turner's son-in-law) because of a contract agreement with Joe Johnson, a free agent who signed with the Hawks prior to last season. Basically, Belkin didn't want to spend the money to acquire Johnson, while the other owners signed-off on the deal.

 

[EnbyCee]

It would be interesting to see FOX buy WGN as even though it's a VHF would they transfer FOX to it? Or would they transfer WFLD call letters and all to channel 9. Channel 32 is well branded and strong as FOX.

Had the history of television gone down a bit differently, Fox could have been WGN at the start. WGN had been Chicago's DuMont affiliate but it was WFLD that was owned by Metromedia, the company that got started by picking up DuMont's old O&Os when the network folded and which contributed all its stations to Fox to get the network started. Fox could have easily gone to Tribune instead, and picked up WPIX, KTLA and WGN as its Big 3 stations. Perhaps more intriguingly, WFLD was itself owned by a completely different company until 1983, and Chris-Craft never owned WPWR, so it was an interested bidder as well. WGN was also a victim of happenstance; at the time it had fallen behind WFLD for a spell at a bad time, and had WFLD not taken advantage of WGN underestimating it it might have been sold to someone completely different, and possibly used for crap like home shopping (with WCIU having a Big Six affiliation).

I believe WFLD (which BTW was owned by Field Enterprises prior to its sale to Metromedia, hence the "FLD") only pulled ahead of WGN for a brief time in the late 70's, but by the early 80's it had solidly established itself as the fifth major player on the Chicago TV scene and most importantly, had left fellow independent WSNS-44 far behind. Losing the White Sox to WGN in 1981 was probably the final nail in WSNS' coffin, the station subsequently became an outlet for the "ON-TV" subscription service until that failed and it subsequently became a Univision, later Telemundo affiliate. Had WSNS had superior programming in its independent days, maybe it would have wound up as Fox Chicago and WFLD would be en espanol these days.

 

[Markxxx]

It would be interesting to see CBS buy WGN-TV Chicago if only for it's digital signal. WBBM (CBS) is on analog channel 2 and it's digital is on channel 3.

So far that is a nightmare. So far WBBM made a deal for WTTW (PBS) to stay on it's digital channel 47, so it can use Channel 11, WTTW's current analog channel.

But WBBM is hemmed in by stations from Layfayette to the south(east), Madison to the north(west) and some station in Michigan to the east, all using channel 11 for their digital signal. Plus WWTO is using channel 10 for it's digital signal. It is in LaSalle to the southwest.

Right now WBBM is supposed to have some weak 1K or something close to it when it moves to Channel 11.

 

[zumahans]

For that reason and others, the FCC may not force the low VHF stations to abandon their NTSC assignments.

In other words, WBBM might remain transmitting on VHF 2 in ATSC digital after 2009.

 

[only1moore]

CBS from Gannett:
DC-WUSA(from Gannett)/WDCW(from Tribune);

One problem: CBS owns WJZ-13/Baltimore. And since that station has heritage its going to take a miracle to spin-off that property.

 

[Morgan Wick]

It would be interesting to see CBS buy WGN-TV Chicago if only for it's digital signal. WBBM (CBS) is on analog channel 2 and it's digital is on channel 3.

So far that is a nightmare. So far WBBM made a deal for WTTW (PBS) to stay on it's digital channel 47, so it can use Channel 11, WTTW's current analog channel.

But WBBM is hemmed in by stations from Layfayette to the south(east), Madison to the north(west) and some station in Michigan to the east, all using channel 11 for their digital signal. Plus WWTO is using channel 10 for it's digital signal. It is in LaSalle to the southwest.

Right now WBBM is supposed to have some weak 1K or something close to it when it moves to Channel 11.

There are really so many stations in that area that WBBM can't try to inherit a UHF station's analog signal?

 

[Markxxx]

It would be interesting to see CBS buy WGN-TV Chicago if only for it's digital signal. WBBM (CBS) is on analog channel 2 and it's digital is on channel 3.

So far that is a nightmare. So far WBBM made a deal for WTTW (PBS) to stay on it's digital channel 47, so it can use Channel 11, WTTW's current analog channel.

But WBBM is hemmed in by stations from Layfayette to the south(east), Madison to the north(west) and some station in Michigan to the east, all using channel 11 for their digital signal. Plus WWTO is using channel 10 for it's digital signal. It is in LaSalle to the southwest.

Right now WBBM is supposed to have some weak 1K or something close to it when it moves to Channel 11.

There are really so many stations in that area that WBBM can't try to inherit a UHF station's analog signal?

I don't know exactly. I got this from the AVS forum. Over there some are saying WBBM made the deal with WTTW simply not to be left out, as they'd have to wait till the third round (or later?). Right now I get interference on Channel 11 (analog) ever since the digital station in Lafayette went on.

The situation the Washington Corridor up thru Boston seems a lot worse but that is a different thread

 

[RALfan]

Here's an idea: why not split the company up like Viacom did when they owned CBS? One half of the company can concentrate on the papers while the other half can focus on the broadcast properties.

 

[bostonmediaguy]

What if CBS and Warner Bros. purchased the Tribune CW stations? CBS then could sell 50% of its existing CW stations to Warners, forming a 50/50 partnership a la The CW with a group of owned stations.

I'm no financial guru and am unsure of the FCC regs regarding split ownership, but it's an idea.

 

[Markxxx]

Crains Chicago Business says the ENTIRE Tribune company is valued at about 8 billion for all assests including the Cubs and the Wrigley Building, in addition to cable, TV, radio and newspapers.

I have no idea if they could get more money by selling off the pieces individually. With digital coming up I wonder what the value of the VHF stations is. Like in Chicago FOX paid $455 million for UHF WPWR Channel 50. I wonder if WGN-TV could bring in. Of course anyone buying the company outright would have the newspaper/TV/Radio issues even worse, because Tribune is grandfathered in, in Chicago, and the new owner, if they bought the whole thing, would have to sell those off.