MidwestTV 1173 Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 FTV Live reports that Sinclair and Tribune are close to a merger deal should FCC regulations relax. https://www.ftvlive.com/sqsp-test/2017/3/15/sinclair-and-tribune-are-close-to-a-deal While I don't know anything about corporate finances and the ins and outs of station ownership, I feel like in the very long term there is no way Sinclair can manage this many stations efficiently. Like I said earlier, they'll end up being some form of "too big to fail" for broadcast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eat News 4738 Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 FTV Live reports that Sinclair and Tribune are close to a merger deal should FCC regulations relax. https://www.ftvlive.com/sqsp-test/2017/3/15/sinclair-and-tribune-are-close-to-a-deal While I don't know anything about corporate finances and the ins and outs of station ownership, I feel like in the very long term there is no way Sinclair can manage this many stations efficiently. Like I said earlier, they'll end up being some form of "too big to fail" for broadcast. Broadcasters are not banks or financial institutions , so they can, do and WILL fail without too much harm to the overall US economy. Not many people would lose jobs because they have already cut everything to the bone. Sure it would suck...but in a perverse way I'm rooting for a few failures as a way to bust up some of these mega groups. Too bad if Perry Sook or the fine folks at Clear Channel / IHM a few others take a bath. KBEX Supports local ownership...and our troops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRob 919 Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 If he dies, he dies. It's funny, though, no one is really talking about the Sinclair rumors at work. We just go about our business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eat News 4738 Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 If he dies, he dies. It's funny, though, no one is really talking about the Sinclair rumors at work. We just go about our business. Do you guys have that prepackaged obit ready? Take a cue from the BBC...rehearse! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMassMediaGeek 98 Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 FTV Live reports that Sinclair and Tribune are close to a merger deal should FCC regulations relax. https://www.ftvlive.com/sqsp-test/2017/3/15/sinclair-and-tribune-are-close-to-a-deal While I don't know anything about corporate finances and the ins and outs of station ownership, I feel like in the very long term there is no way Sinclair can manage this many stations efficiently. Like I said earlier, they'll end up being some form of "too big to fail" for broadcast. Please don't let this merger happen!! WGN will be ruined if this happens!! :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atlnews2 557 Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 If this merger were to be announced I wonder if pressure from cable/satellite providers will be enough to stop it. You also have to wonder if the networks would be comfortable with the kind of power Sinclair would have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRob 919 Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 Lawsuits from related companies and industries would definitely hold it up, but since the administration is pro-business, the FCC, SEC and DOJ won't do a thing. If Sinclair really wants it, they will own the Tribune stations by 1Q 2018. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRolyPoly 1843 Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 Lawsuits from related companies and industries would definitely hold it up, but since the administration is pro-business, the FCC, SEC and DOJ won't do a thing. If Sinclair really wants it, they will own the Tribune stations by 1Q 2018. A station like WDAF would be horrible under Sinclair, just like WPIX, KTLA, WGN and for the bonus, WJW. These legacies are on the line. If Comcast/TWC can be stopped, the same can be done here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A3N 996 Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 Now would be a good time for Comcast to start raising a stink. If the Comcast/TWC was not in the public's best interest, then neither is [potential] Sinclair/Tribune deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyrannical bastard 3442 Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 If the cap is eliminated but the "voices" rule remains in place, Meredith could acquire the overlapping stations in all the markets except for St. Louis and Portland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevCor 344 Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 There's no way, absent private court action, that this DOESN'T happen. From the NY Post: The huge merger is coming together in part because of a close relationship between Sinclair’s executive chairman and former CEO, David Smith, and Trump, sources said. Smith is a well-known contributor to Republican causes. “David Smith goes to see Trump and Trump says, ‘What do you need to happen in your business?’ ” says a source familiar with the meeting. Another person confirmed that a meeting took place and potential FCC rule changes were discussed. Pai is already deemed on board, with the cap rule being eliminated VERY soon (within the next two weeks according to the Post). And I'm sure the ever pliable AG and his Justice Dept will fall in line as well. As sad as it may be, I can't see anything putting a real wrench in this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eat News 4738 Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 There's no way, absent private court action, that this DOESN'T happen. From the NY Post: Pai is already deemed on board, with the cap rule being eliminated VERY soon (within the next two weeks according to the Post). And I'm sure the ever pliable AG and his Justice Dept will fall in line as well. As sad as it may be, I can't see anything putting a real wrench in this. Let the open market decide. That's the way it should be. There is nothing stopping any other group of people from making the same deal. If the lefties or righties want to own a ton of stations they can buy them on the open market. Stuff swings both way eventually... Some of the mega groups WILL fail....it's just the law of averages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A3N 996 Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 Hypothetically speaking: What are the chances that if the Dems take control of the House/Senate next year, that they would force these companies to divest? Because this [new] Sinclair would have some monopolistic aspects in some of the smaller markets that don't have that many tv stations--especially when they have a few stations in several markets with multiple affiliations. Not exactly open for competition... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eat News 4738 Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 This is exactly why they were selling off the land and the studios. They wanted to trim down the asking price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOneManHerd 553 Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 Having to tell people you work for Tronc, or Chorp, or whatever, doesn't sound so bad anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weeters 1804 Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 Split to its own thread. Anyone posting exhaustive lists of "conflicts" or how this can't happen due to "limits" in this thread will be thread banned until the FCC removes/modifies the ownership rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TennTV1983 742 Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 Hypothetically speaking: What are the chances that if the Dems take control of the House/Senate next year, that they would force these companies to divest? Because this [new] Sinclair would have some monopolistic aspects in some of the smaller markets that don't have that many tv stations--especially when they have a few stations in several markets with multiple affiliations. Not exactly open for competition... Even IF the GOP were to majorities in both chambers, they would still have control of the executive branch. Which means we would still have to deal with people like Ajit Pai controlling communication policy for the foreseeable future, even if it's not in the best interest of the general public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cna247 173 Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Hypothetically speaking: What are the chances that if the Dems take control of the House/Senate next year, that they would force these companies to divest? Because this [new] Sinclair would have some monopolistic aspects in some of the smaller markets that don't have that many tv stations--especially when they have a few stations in several markets with multiple affiliations. Not exactly open for competition... Zero chance. Because the earliest the Dems could take control of the Senate or House is January 2019 (as a result of the November 2018 election). That's almost two years away (those elections only happen every two years). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newsbot 269 Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 I never understood the reasoning behind the 39% cap. It seems arbitrary and capricious. I mean, is 40% a threat to our democracy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channel2 869 Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 I think Fox lobbied to have it raised from 35% in the early 2000s, and 39% just so happened to coincide with their footprint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainNews 285 Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 I never understood the reasoning behind the 39% cap. It seems arbitrary and capricious. I mean, is 40% a threat to our democracy? I mean 50% is apparently a continental threat and 60% is an international threat.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkolsen 1675 Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 If this merger were to be announced I wonder if pressure from cable/satellite providers will be enough to stop it. You also have to wonder if the networks would be comfortable with the kind of power Sinclair would have. That's a good point. It's also worth keeping in mind many affiliation agreements require approval from the network before a sale goes through. Now this maybe out there but I believe the networks could have an upper hand in this case because if they don't like the deal. They could hypothetically threaten to pull the affiliation (even if they have no where else to go) if they don't get what they want. With out the networks the stations would be useless. With ATSC 3.0 on the way they could find another station in the market to carry them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TennTV1983 742 Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 I never understood the reasoning behind the 39% cap. It seems arbitrary and capricious. I mean, is 40% a threat to our democracy? No, but I think it had more to do with diversifying ownership between multiple companies/families rather than having just a handful of names own everything. I also think the latter is where we're eventually heading on a national scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A3N 996 Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 That's a good point. It's also worth keeping in mind many affiliation agreements require approval from the network before a sale goes through. Now this maybe out there but I believe the networks could have an upper hand in this case because if they don't like the deal. They could hypothetically threaten to pull the affiliation (even if they have no where else to go) if they don't get what they want. With out the networks the stations would be useless. With ATSC 3.0 on the way they could find another station in the market to carry them. Good points. That being said, if the ownership cap is raised, and the networks don't like these deals, what's stopping them from stepping into some of the more lucrative markets and taking their affiliation in-house? Double-edged sword. *This is assuming that the affiliation agreement has or is about to expire with a station/network. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channel2 869 Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 This is a stretch of an example, but for instance, where would ABC even go in DC, with Sinclair owning WJLA and WDCW? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.