Jump to content

The Tribune Saga, Part 3: New Sale Talks


mre29

Recommended Posts

Ohhhh now I get it.

 

"Acceptable" seems to about sum up the corpse of WLVI.

As long as Ed Ansin is paying CBS enough reverse compensation to run the CW on WLVI, I guess that’s enough.

 

You’d think that CBS would put such an agreement in writing, though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 369
  • Created
  • Last Reply
At some point, the shareholders of Tribune need to stand up to Starboard Value and say "Enough is ENOUGH!" But the problem is none of Tribune's shareholders is willing to stand up against Starboard.

Seriously, look at this list of the largest shareholders in Tribune. They are all private equity, hedge funds or investment firms.

 

No one is going to stand up because they are all as guilty as Starboard Value is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, look at this list of the largest shareholders in Tribune. They are all private equity, hedge funds or investment firms.

 

No one is going to stand up because they are all as guilty as Starboard Value is.

That's the whole point! They won't stand up to Starboard Value and why should they? Simple, they're making too much money from Tribune to even sell and if that's the case its time for Starboard Value to take Tribune off the block but is Starboard Value going to even do that? Nope

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if the owner of the Glendive station bought it, they would go from 0.002% over the cap immediately.

 

It’s slightly worse than that since the owner of the Glendive station owns stations in other markets, so he already has more than a linthair amount of the market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Starboard Value deserves to fail spectacularly if they are stupid enough to accept the ION/Hicks bid. Seems like they'll keep trying and failing to sell it as a group in hopes that this one time... they'll get the sale they want.

 

I say we start calling them Overboard Value. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't Tribune based in the Tribune Tower, not Soldier Field?

 

Also it's eminently doubtful CBS cares that much about bringing the CW in-house in Boston anyway.

 

I really don't think Tribune needed to sell WLVI, in any event.

 

Tribune Media isn't headquartered at Soldier Field, they are at: 515 N State Street, Chicago. That's 2 miles northwest of solder field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a little off topic, but why are WGN's studios so far away from all of the other Chicago TV Stations?. (WMAQ, WFLD, etc)

I don't have any confirmation beyond this, but the station's Wikipedia article suggests that it was a Cold War-era decision.

 

"In 1961, the WGN stations moved to studio facilities on West Bradley Place in the North Center neighborhood, a move undertaken for civil defense concerns in order to provide the station a safe location to broadcast in case of a hostile attack targeting downtown Chicago."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have any confirmation beyond this, but the station's Wikipedia article suggests that it was a Cold War-era decision.

 

"In 1961, the WGN stations moved to studio facilities on West Bradley Place in the North Center neighborhood, a move undertaken for civil defense concerns in order to provide the station a safe location to broadcast in case of a hostile attack targeting downtown Chicago."

 

Smart then. Smart now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have any confirmation beyond this, but the station's Wikipedia article suggests that it was a Cold War-era decision.

 

"In 1961, the WGN stations moved to studio facilities on West Bradley Place in the North Center neighborhood, a move undertaken for civil defense concerns in order to provide the station a safe location to broadcast in case of a hostile attack targeting downtown Chicago."

 

Smart plan. Chicago is a world city. It’s also a prime spot for terrorism (thank God Chicago hasn’t seen a terror attack in ages).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact is, CBS could and can do that. They already did with WPWR, so there's precedent with striking new affiliations with KCOP and KXTH in Houston.

 

WLNY in New York, KXTA in Dallas and WBFS in Miami should be easily convertible into CW O&Os if it went that far. I don't think it will, but you never know.

 

Honestly if CBS is going to move the CW affiliation anywhere in Los Angeles, it would be KCAL 9 which they own. But of course all of this, and most of what I have seen in this thread, belong in Speculatron 9000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly if CBS is going to move the CW affiliation anywhere in Los Angeles, it would be KCAL 9 which they own. But of course all of this, and most of what I have seen in this thread, belong in Speculatron 9000.

KCAL makes a ton of money on their well established primetime newscasts. Won't ever happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards to the whole Ion thing, does no one think that if hell freezes over and they do win Tribune, that Ion wouldn't try to sell some of their existing stations or Tribune junior partners off to other people who only own one station in the affected cities. For example, KAUT or KOPX and WNOL or WPXL heading to Hearst. Just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then there's the strong likelihood of Fox strong-arming and forcing ION/Hicks to sell to them all of Tribune's Fox affiliates and maybe a WSFL. CBS may have to do the same just so the CW can remain viable.

 

Remember when Fox was supposed to team up with Ion to ditch Sinclair and Tribune in the event that the acquistion went through. It's not too far-fetched to believe that this would happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just amazing. Memo to Sinclair: it’s over. Tribune is suing you. You’re not getting any of it. Give up.

 

Haven't we learned by now they don't take no for an answer? No matter how many times you tell them.

 

Most famous example: Sinclair's refusal to sell stations to non-affiliated buyers so it could complete it's acquisition of......oh yeah! TRIBUNE. To make things extra fun, you want Cox and the RSNs as well. Chris, Smith Family. Stop huffing paint. Get real.

 

Maybe this will wake Tribune's shareholders up and help them realize a few things. After all, other groups needed a little help being woken up by rumours of Sinclair snooping around the place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't we learned by now they don't take no for an answer? No matter how many times you tell them.

 

Most famous example: Sinclair's refusal to sell stations to non-affiliated buyers so it could complete it's acquisition of......oh yeah! TRIBUNE. To make things extra fun, you want Cox and the RSNs as well. Chris, Smith Family. Stop huffing paint. Get real.

 

Maybe this will wake Tribune's shareholders up and help them realize a few things. After all, other groups needed a little help being woken up by rumours of Sinclair snooping around the place.

 

That was probably a critical factor in the Gray-Raycom deal...fear they would be swallowed up by the Hunt Valley colossus. They were likely also denied in Cordillera as well...if they got Tribune whole, Cordillera AND Cox, with no divestitures (as they wanted), they would be on the verge of owning a sickening 264 stations...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was probably a critical factor in the Gray-Raycom deal...fear they would be swallowed up by the Hunt Valley colossus. They were likely also denied in Cordillera as well...if they got Tribune whole, Cordillera AND Cox, with no divestitures (as they wanted), they would be on the verge of owning a sickening 264 stations...

 

This is why it wouldn't surprise me if the companies we least expected came to a deal to merge with Tribune. For me, that's either Scripps, Meredith or Graham. Any divestitures being done after the fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why it wouldn't surprise me if the companies we least expected came to a deal to merge with Tribune. For me, that's either Scripps, Meredith or Graham. Any divestitures being done after the fact.

 

So, how would they do it? Would one company make the deal with Tribune, then turn around and sell stations piecemeal? Would they pool their money together and create a temporary new company that would make the purchase, then divvy up the stations and dissolve the temporary company?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, how would they do it? Would one company make the deal with Tribune, then turn around and sell stations piecemeal? Would they pool their money together and create a temporary new company that would make the purchase, then divvy up the stations and dissolve the temporary company?

 

I had the first option in mind but you may be onto something with that second scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Weeters unpinned and locked this topic

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.