ABC 7 Denver 1552 Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Sinclair just announced not long ago that they are buying four stations from Cox... One of which is in my market. WJAC in Johnstown, my market WTOV in Wheeling KFOX in El Paso KRXI in Reno They are buying KFOX? That sucks. Sinclair is a bottomless pit of despair! :bang: :bang: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjohnson 15 Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 What really puzzles me is while Sinclair is spending all of this money on buying more stations, they could have spent $1.5 billion on updating and upgrading their existing stations to be more competitive. You can't competitiveness going about things like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CircleSeven 1944 Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Okay. Just over two weeks after the announcement. The paperwork is now posted on the FCC site. FINALLY!!! Here's the thorough breakdown on the transaction including the lineup & purchase agreement, which Sinclair will be paying Barrington $370 mil. Howard Stirk Holdings (ran by Armstrong Williams) will acquire WEYI 25 in Flint from Barrington proper and WWMB in Myrtle Beach from SagamoreHill. Armstrong will be paying $1.48 mil for WEYI and $540,000 for WWMB. So basically Armstrong is paying Sinclair $2 mil to get WEYI & WWMB. Cunningham will acquire the Flint's CW station WBSF 46 from Barrington proper and Traverse City's ABC stations WGTU/WGTQ from Tucker Broadcasting. And NEW INFO!!! Sinclair will transfer WYZZ Fox 43 in Peoria & WSYT Fox 68 in Syracuse to Cunningham Broadcasting for $57 mil ($25 mil for WSYT & $22 mil for WYZZ). Nexstar will continue to provide sales & services to WYZZ. Sinclair will provide services to WSYT, but under a short term basis. I knew these two wouldn't be out of the Sinclair fold. Speaking of Cunningham, it has recently filed an application to the FCC to Transfer the Control of the shell corporation to Michael Anderson. Cunningham was operated by him, and the trust of the late Carolyn Smith (wife of Sinclair's founder Julian Smith, and her maiden name is Cunningham). This reasoning of this application is to wind down that trust and to give all the Cunningham control to Michael Anderson. I don't care what anyone say. I don't care if Anderson, or Mumblow, or Williams is calling all the shots on these shells. As long as there's a breath of David Smith and all three has dealings with Smith as he continue to call all the shots on his operating practices in Maryland, Cunningham is Sinclair. Deerfield is Sinclair. The NEW Chesapeake is Sinclair (not the old Chesapeake because that was Sinclair's old name). And if you don't know that by now, read between the lines everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hathawaynson2 38 Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 I've read the "between the lines" documents regarding Cunningham Broadcasting Corporation (that is currently used by Sinclair as a shell corporation) and I have an question: Does this mean that Cunningham Broadcasting is going to become an spin-off from Sinclair once the trusts have been defunct and control has been handed over to Michael Anderson? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CircleSeven 1944 Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 I've read the "between the lines" documents regarding Cunningham Broadcasting Corporation (that is currently used by Sinclair as a shell corporation) and I have an question: Does this mean that Cunningham Broadcasting is going to become an spin-off from Sinclair once the trusts have been defunct and control has been handed over to Michael Anderson? You are almost right. But based on the current agreements with the stations, it's hard to tell that it is not a shell corporation. And Anderson is going to be the sole controller of Cunningham, once the transfer of controls get approved by the FCC. When I said "read between the lines", I mean know about Sinclair and all of its shells or what they call it their "side-companies". Just like Stephen Mumblow with Deerfield. When you see anything from Cunnningham or Deerfield, I see Sinclair written all over their foreheads. I am looking forward to see once their acquisitive streak be over so they pour over the capital on these stations, if they're even going to do that. And which stations from the Sinclair proper will also be transfer to Sinclair's new baby proxy, the new Chesapeake Television subsidiary. Will KFDM/KBTV in Beaumont, KTVL in Medford, WTWC in Tallahassee or WMMP/WTAT in Charleston, SC move to the subsidiary, since they among are the smallest stations in their portfolio? I'm thinking they might just do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hathawaynson2 38 Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 "You are almost right. But based on the current agreements with the stations, it's hard to tell that it is not a shell corporation. And Anderson is going to be the sole controller of Cunningham, once the transfer of controls get approved by the FCC. When I said "read between the lines", I mean know about Sinclair and all of its shells or what they call it their "side-companies". Just like Stephen Mumblow with Deerfield. When you see anything from Cunningham or Deerfield, I see Sinclair written all over their foreheads. I am looking forward to see once their acquisitive streak be over so they pour over the capital on these stations, if they're even going to do that. And which stations from the Sinclair proper will also be transfer to Sinclair's new baby proxy, the new Chesapeake Television subsidiary." I personally would like to see the stations(KFDM/KBTV, Beaumont, TX KTVL Medford, OR, WTWC in Tallahassee, FL and WMMP/WTAT in Charleston SC plus WYZZ and WSYT that you mentioned get transferred to the new proxy called Chesapeake Television subsidiary or sold to the broadcasting companies that I mentioned(LIN Media, Gray Television Group, Raycom Media or Local TV*) that can make a commitment to produce enough revenue to keep the stations alive and in working order. Therefore, I physically have to agree with you and also your "read between the lines" when it comes to Cunningham, Deerfield and Manhan Media and I do REALLY agree with you (as a matter of fact, Deerfield and Manhan Media are controlled by Stephen Mumblow) as I am typing my response out. (*giving an examples on what could happened if worst came to worst, not wishful thinking) My Quote from the TVNewscheck article regarding an Television Station Sale in Alaska: Then the FCC should do its job and deny the sale of these two affiliates in the first place and second of all they should've denied the sale of the ABC affiliate in Topeka, Kansas because of the duopoly rules. http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/65865/fcc-asked-to-turn-down-alaska-station-buy?ref=search Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hathawaynson2 38 Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 "You are almost right. But based on the current agreements with the stations, it's hard to tell that it is not a shell corporation. And Anderson is going to be the sole controller of Cunningham, once the transfer of controls get approved by the FCC. When I said "read between the lines", I mean know about Sinclair and all of its shells or what they call it their "side-companies". Just like Stephen Mumblow with Deerfield. When you see anything from Cunningham or Deerfield, I see Sinclair written all over their foreheads. I am looking forward to see once their acquisitive streak be over so they pour over the capital on these stations, if they're even going to do that. And which stations from the Sinclair proper will also be transfer to Sinclair's new baby proxy, the new Chesapeake Television subsidiary." I personally would like to see the stations(KFDM/KBTV, Beaumont, TX KTVL Medford, OR, WTWC in Tallahassee, FL and WMMP/WTAT in Charleston SC plus WYZZ and WSYT that you mentioned get transferred to the new proxy called Chesapeake Television subsidiary or sold to the broadcasting companies that I mentioned(LIN Media, Gray Television Group, Raycom Media or Local TV*) that can make a commitment to produce enough revenue to keep the stations alive and in working order. Therefore, I physically have to agree with you and also your "read between the lines" when it comes to Cunningham, Deerfield and Manhan Media and I do REALLY agree with you (as a matter of fact, Deerfield and Manhan Media are controlled by Stephen Mumblow) as I am typing my response out. (*giving an examples on what could happened if worst came to worst, not wishful thinking) My Quote from the TVNewscheck article regarding an Television Station Sale in Alaska: Then the FCC should do its job and deny the sale of these two affiliates in the first place and second of all they should've denied the sale of the ABC affiliate in Topeka, Kansas because of the duopoly rules. http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/65865/fcc-asked-to-turn-down-alaska-station-buy?ref=search Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.