Jump to content

Sinclair, Tribune Close to Merger Deal


MidwestTV

Recommended Posts

What do you think the end game will be?

 

Do they go back to square one and start the bidding process all over again, or does Sinclair pony up extra cash to shut these shareholders up?

The Smith Klan will let Osama bin Epshteyn contact his Russian banking buddies to pay off those disgruntled shareholders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
What do you think the end game will be?

 

Do they go back to square one and start the bidding process all over again, or does Sinclair pony up extra cash to shut these shareholders up?

 

The end game is they still get sold...er..."flipped".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The end game is they still get sold...er..."flipped".

but the question is: to Sinclair?

 

Forgive my ignorance on these kinds of deals, but theoretically can someone else come in and offer Tribune more cash than what Sinclair is offering?

 

From the article above, it seems like some of the gripes that the shareholders have is that Sinclair's final offer was only 8% premium over what the stock's closing share price was on 5/5. Obviously meaning that they want more money... But say their gripes have some kind of merit, and someone else comes to the table and says we'll offer you 11-12% premium above, can/are Tribune's board legally able to consider and or take a [new, higher] offer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but the question is: to Sinclair?

 

Forgive my ignorance on these kinds of deals, but theoretically can someone else come in and offer Tribune more cash than what Sinclair is offering?

 

Sure...

It's a free market.

Sinclair could get "big footed" at any time.

 

And didn't Meredith have to pay Nexstar some "failed deal" fee? I may be getting my mergers mixed up.

 

And Sinclair is allowed to just screw it up if they try to rush stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shareholder suits are fairly typical in sales/mergers like this and they always amount to nothing. There no reason to think this one will be any different.

 

We've been here before...

 

August 2, 2013: "Three minority shareholders of Fisher Communications Inc said a $373 million takeover bid by Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc undervalues the TV broadcaster and are looking to activist investor Mario Gabelli to derail the offer."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ut the question is: to Sinclair?

 

Forgive my ignorance on these kinds of deals, but theoretically can someone else come in and offer Tribune more cash than what Sinclair is offering?

 

From the article above, it seems like some of the gripes that the shareholders have is that Sinclair's final offer was only 8% premium over what the stock's closing share price was on 5/5. Obviously meaning that they want more money... But say their gripes have some kind of merit, and someone else comes to the table and says we'll offer you 11-12% premium above, can/are Tribune's board legally able to consider and or take a [new, higher] offer?

 

Short answer; HIGHLY unlikely this will stop the deal.

 

There will be severe penalty if either company backs out now, at this point they know all the inner workings of both companies. Most likely there's a contract that Tribune can't talk other companies about a sale.

 

There will always be a few shareholders that believe the price should be more, this happens often and I don't believe suits like this have ever won (at least for the TV industry). Sinclair and Tribune were probably expecting this suit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure...

It's a free market.

Sinclair could get "big footed" at any time.

 

And didn't Meredith have to pay Nexstar some "failed deal" fee? I may be getting my mergers mixed up.

 

And Sinclair is allowed to just screw it up if they try to rush stuff.

 

After Media General decided to merge with Nexstar, MG paid Meredith $60M to terminate their merger deal.

 

With this Sinclair-Tribune deal, Tribune would have to pay Sinclair $135.5M, if they break up before the termination date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is this:

 

If they do win and break up the merger and the bidding process starts all over again which list of companies do you think could bid for Tribune?

 

My list would be:

 

TEGNA (With Conflicts in Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo, St. Louis, Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto, Denver, Greensboro, Cleveland-Akron, Seattle and New Orleans. Duopolies would be formed in Portland, Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Hampton Roads, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston and Washington, D.C.)

 

Hearst (With Conflicts in Fort Smith-Fayetteville, Oklahoma City, Des Moines, Louisville, New Orleans, Kansas City, Greensboro, Harrisburg-Lancaster, Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto and Milwaukee. No new duopolies would be formed)

 

Meredith (With Conflicts in St. Louis, Kansas City, Portland and Hartford-New Haven. Again, no new duopolies would be formed)

 

Scripps (With conflicts in Kansas City, Denver, San Diego, Indianapolis, Cleveland-Akron and Milwaukee. Once again no new duopolies would be formed)

 

Raycom (With conflicts in Memphis, New Orleans, Richmond-Petersburg and Cleveland-Akron)

 

Cox Media Group (Conflicts in Memphis and Seattle-Tacoma)

 

Nexstar (With Conflicts in Fort Smith-Fayetteville, Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo, Quad Cities, IL-IA, Indianapolis, Des Moines, Memphis, Salt Lake City, Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Hampton Roads and Richmond-Petersburg. New duopolies would be formed in Portland and Quad Cities, IL-IA)

 

The only buyer for Tribune with ZERO conflicts would be Graham.

 

What's your list of potential bidders for Tribune should the merger with Sinclair be broken up?

 

Yes, okay, we get it. Pretty much nobody can buy Tribune piecemeal. UNLESS the rules change, and it sure looks like they're going to.

 

Please stop making lists of "conflicts".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think that if the FCC, DOJ or a court denies the entire acquisition (as many interest groups and individuals are pushing for), this will end up in a VERY messy court battle that could drag on forever.

 

Would it make Nexstar and ComCorp seem like child's play?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think that if the FCC, DOJ or a court denies the entire acquisition (as many interest groups and individuals are pushing for), this will end up in a VERY messy court battle that could drag on forever.

Don't count on the DOJ. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions will grease the skids and his kneepads... to the extent he'll allow triopolies and quadopolies, because it's Sinclair and they love Republicans.

 

If any group is expecting Altji I. M. Paid Off to reconsider his masturbatory orgasms towards this merger and deny it, then they deserve to lose all of the money they heretofore waste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think that if the FCC, DOJ or a court denies the entire acquisition (as many interest groups and individuals are pushing for), this will end up in a VERY messy court battle that could drag on forever.

 

They will get greenlighted by the FCC, the green light from Justice, and SBG could probably appeal and find a favorable court ruling if it had to. (Especially if the case went to SCOTUS.)

 

I will say this. When acquisitions drag out, SBG will try everything in the book. The nearly year-long Allbritton saga, with Sinclair proposing various types of station divestments, gutting and even a transmitter swap, is testament to that. (And to the ability of lawyers to create documents so redacted their only purpose is to waste ink.)

 

You have to be mighty crafty to say "Alright, we can't own the CBS and ABC affiliate, but we'll keep the stronger ABC affiliate and pair it with the better CBS transmission facilities, which also kind of rimshot our headquarters!" They ended up backing off that plan.

 

Sometimes I wonder what Clifford Harrington is up to these days at Pillsbury. His profile on the site lists among his representative experience "Represented Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. in numerous acquisitions, including its $985 million acquisition of the Allbritton Communications Corp. entities."

 

He sure did!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=17-179&sort=date_disseminated,DESC

 

There have been quite a number of filings to deny so far (and many more likely to come), but they likely will get swept under the rug because they are all focused on the content and seem to be left-wing anger at their right-wing bias, and nothing to do with the legal rules that Sinclair will be breaking. There are no laws preventing companies taking a right-wing (or left-wing) bias in terms of operations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=17-179&sort=date_disseminated,DESC

 

There have been quite a number of filings to deny so far (and many more likely to come), but they likely will get swept under the rug because they are all focused on the content and seem to be left-wing anger at their right-wing bias, and nothing to do with the legal rules that Sinclair will be breaking. There are no laws preventing companies taking a right-wing (or left-wing) bias in terms of operations.

That's unfortunate. Somebody needs to come up with some other reason to get them to stop this deal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under the radar for the past week. The rebellious Sinclair ND's must do a great job at burying the Hyman editorials. Something they can't say about the Epshteyn must-runs anymore.

Mark Hyman will be reassigned to sing the Soviet National Anthem preceding Osama bin Epshteyn's directives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using TVNewsTalk you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.