• 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

WB+Netflix=$82.7 billion shocker!

only1moore said:
Looks like Paramount Global isn’t the only one interested
www.hollywoodreporter.com

Warner Bros. Discovery Says Mysterious Singapore Firm Made Last-Minute Bid, but Something Was Off

WBD also disclosed a potential payout for David Zaslav of $887 million, though the actual number could be lower or higher, depending on if Paramount pays a ticking fee, or if a tax reimbursement is lower.
www.hollywoodreporter.com www.hollywoodreporter.com
Click to expand...
Almost any amount is worth it to remove him from management. He has been a cancer.
 
The Netflix CEO has now responded to the call from the president to fire Susan Rice from his company's board. His response was about what I expected:

www.independent.co.uk

Netflix CEO responds to Trump’s call to remove Susan Rice from streamer’s board

President Donald Trump called former national security adviser to Barack Obama ‘racist’ and ‘deranged’ in February Truth Social rant that was ignored by streaming boss Ted Sarandos
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk

I think he also has a very realistic approach to the president's social media posts. He takes them with a grain of salt. Perhaps we should all do the same.

“I think it’s really important to be able to separate noise from signal, and I think a lot of what happens in a world where we have a lot of noise,” he said.
Click to expand...
 
Not really. Mr. Sarandos is the second-largest individual shareholder of Netflix, but he owns well under 0.25%. Netflix does not have a super-voting class of shares to give him more power than ordinary shareholders (like Walmart and Ford Motors use to give their founding families outsized control).
 
TheBigA said:
Except that this CEO is also a major shareholder.
Click to expand...
Define major. He owns about 550,000 shares, far less than 1% of the total. His holdings don't move the needle. PTBoardOp is correct, it lies with the Board. The Board will, either on their own or as a result of shareholder action, dump Rice at a time where it doesn't seem as if they are capitulating to the President. She has demonstrated tone deafness on a scale that makes her ill suited to be a director of a public company.

 
TheBigA said:
By doing what????

He owns more Netflix stock than POTUS, and the only one besides you calling for her removal was POTUS. He has long since forgotten about it.
Click to expand...
I've clearly stated this in prior posts, but I'll do so again for your benefit:

By making comments antangostic to the current administration during a time in which the company she is a Director for was in the midst of seeking to purchase a company, a merger which would require regulatory approval.

I don't dispute that she has a right to say what she said, as foolish as it was, but doing in the midst of the circumstances articulated above indicates she lacked the restraint and intelligence to understand the impact of what she was saying or she didn't care about the impact to the company she serves as a Director for. Either scenario makes her continuing as a Director untenable.

I would hope that a CEO of a company would have more shares in that company that the President. What a nonsensical comment on your part.
 
umfan said:
By making comments antangostic to the current administration during a time in which the company she is a Director for was in the midst of seeking to purchase a company, a merger which would require regulatory approval.
Click to expand...

What she said was the truth. It didn't antagonize the administration, just the president, who made one social media post that he never repeated. He later met with the company CEO, and invested his own personal money in the company. Obviously he has no ill will towards the CEO or the company. The president has completely forgotten about the issue, as has everyone else, except you.
 
TheBigA said:
What she said was the truth. It didn't antagonize the administration, just the president, who made one social media post that he never repeated. He later met with the company CEO, and invested his own personal money in the company. Obviously he has no ill will towards the CEO or the company. The president has completely forgotten about the issue, as has everyone else, except you.
Click to expand...
You regard as truth her assertion that people should be jailed or gone after in a future Democratic administration (if there is one) because as business administrators they simply adapted to the current regulatory regime?

That's regrettable.
 
umfan said:
You regard as truth her assertion that people should be jailed or gone after in a future Democratic administration (if there is one) because as business administrators they simply adapted to the current regulatory regime?
Click to expand...

Here's what she said. I don't see anything wrong with saying if people commit crimes, they will be held accountable.

“You know, companies already are starting to hear they better preserve their documents. They better be ready for subpoenas. If they’ve done something wrong, they’ll be held accountable, and if they haven’t broken the law, good for them,” Rice said.
Click to expand...

Right now this president is doing exactly what she said, by issuing a subpoena to James Comey. I guess if he does it, that must make it OK.
 
umfan said:
You regard as truth her assertion that people should be jailed or gone after in a future Democratic administration (if there is one) because as business administrators they simply adapted to the current regulatory regime?

That's regrettable.
Click to expand...

That's also not what she said.


One more time:

"If they’ve done something wrong, they’ll be held accountable, and if they haven’t broken the law, good for them.”
Click to expand...

And let's go ahead and put it in full context:

She [Rice] predicted an “accountability agenda” awaited those entities, forecasting an electoral shift in the upcoming midterm elections.

“You know, companies already are starting to hear they better preserve their documents. They better be ready for subpoenas. If they’ve done something wrong, they’ll be held accountable, and if they haven’t broken the law, good for them,” Rice said.

“This is not going to be an instance of, you know, forgive and forget. The damage that these people are doing is too severe to the American people and to our national interest,” she continued.
Click to expand...

Full story here: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5748439-susan-rice-trump-corporations-accountability/
 
TheBigA said:
It's being reported that the president bought about $1.25 million in debt from Netflix on the day the company withdraw from bidding on WBD. So in addition to the $2.6 billion cancellation fee, Netflix also received another $1.25 million. Not bad for doing nothing.
Click to expand...
Everything in Trumps name is in a blind trust now. My trust funds can be identified as having interests in Netfix and one, at least, of the lenders as well as Oracle. I don't take part in those decisions to buy and sell, either. And $1.35 million is pocket change for them, anyway.

The market cap of Netfilx is $384 billion. Do the math. $1.35 million does not have any influence at all in the world of share ownership. What was bought is through the Trump Revocable Trust while he is president.
TheBigA said:
One might wonder if such a thing is legal. It probably is. But who is going to tell this president what to do?
Click to expand...
Whatever the trust funds do is not decided on by the President. And the amount in question is insignificant.
 
davideduardo said:
Everything in Trumps name is in a blind trust now.
Click to expand...

A trust, yes.

A blind trust, no. Trump's assets are in a revocable trust.

Essential pull-quote:

Trump's arrangement is similar to one during his first presidency, when he handed the management of his businesses to his sons Don Jr. and Eric Trump. At the time, ethics experts, including the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, urged Trump to completely divest or set up a blind trust for his assets. He resisted.
Click to expand...

Full story: https://www.reuters.com/business/trump-will-separate-himself-family-business-wsj-reports-2025-01-10/

And as to the particulars of how that trust worked the first time around...

Essential pull-quote:
Trump can draw money from his more than 400 businesses, at any time, without disclosing it.

The previously unreported changes to a trust document, signed on Feb. 10, stipulates that it “shall distribute net income or principal to Donald J. Trump at his request” or whenever his son and longtime attorney “deem appropriate.” That can include everything from profits to the underlying assets, such as the businesses themselves.

Here is the new clause, from page 161:


“It’s incredibly broad language,” said Frederick J. Tansill, a family estate and trust attorney outside Washington, D.C., who reviewed the documents for ProPublica.

There is nothing requiring Trump to disclose when he takes profits from the trust, which could go directly into his bank or brokerage account. That’s because both the trust and Trump Organization are privately held. The only people who know the details of the Trump trust’s finances are its trustees, Trump’s son, Donald Jr., and Allen Weisselberg, the company’s chief financial officer. Trump’s other son, Eric, has been listed as an adviser to the trust, according to this revised document.
Click to expand...

Full story: Trump Lawyer Confirms President Can Pull Money From His Businesses Whenever He Wants
 


Back
Top Bottom