But again, Murdoch doesn't WANT cash. He wants stock, and seeing as he's in a position to where they don't NEED to sell, I think Comcast is wasting their time.

(05-09-2018 06:56 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  But again, Murdoch doesn't WANT cash. He wants stock, and seeing as he's in a position to where they don't NEED to sell, I think Comcast is wasting their time.

Yes, some seem to think that "cash" is inherently better than "stock". But not necessarily. E.g., I'd much rather get a million shares of Disney stock at $50 a share than $50 million in cash.

(05-09-2018 12:09 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 11:56 AM)XLance Wrote:  Murdoch sought out Disney.
He needs to do a stock swap (not a cash sale) to avoid billions in capital gains taxes.

Yeah, it would seem that a stock swap is critical here. That avoids the capital gains tax issue along with making Murdoch one of the top shareholders of Disney. Control and influence is as important as the money at this point for him. Making Murdoch into a top shareholder isn't that big of a deal for Disney - they already have big names like the wife of the late Steve Jobs (via Disney's acquisition of Pixar) and George Lucas (via Disney's acquisition of Lucasfilm) on that list, so there isn't a sense of "OMG Rupert Murdoch is taking over Disney!" with this transaction. The Disney business would pretty much run the same even with Murdoch having a large stake and presumably a board seat.

In contrast, Comcast is structured very much like... Fox. It has a controlling family (the Roberts) that holds a disproportionate number of voting shares, so the company is run like a really large family business (just as Murdoch has run Fox and News Corp.). As a result, Comcast can't really let Murdoch become a top shareholder because that completely changes the dynamic of who controls that company. That's a huge reason why Comcast is so insistent on a cash deal - they don't want the Murdoch family having any real say in the business going forward at all.

Frank, I would imagine the Murdoch will start dumping Disney stock at the first opportunity. His goal wasn't another investment, but converting his interest in FOX/News Corp into cash (without the taxes).

(05-09-2018 07:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 06:56 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  But again, Murdoch doesn't WANT cash. He wants stock, and seeing as he's in a position to where they don't NEED to sell, I think Comcast is wasting their time.

Yes, some seem to think that "cash" is inherently better than "stock". But not necessarily. E.g., I'd much rather get a million shares of Disney stock at $50 a share than $50 million in cash.

The miracle of deferred tax status! Wait until you have a write off against the capital gains and then sell.

(05-09-2018 07:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 06:56 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  But again, Murdoch doesn't WANT cash. He wants stock, and seeing as he's in a position to where they don't NEED to sell, I think Comcast is wasting their time.

Yes, some seem to think that "cash" is inherently better than "stock". But not necessarily. E.g., I'd much rather get a million shares of Disney stock at $50 a share than $50 million in cash.

As long as that "stock" is stable and backed by a huge market cap/robust cash flow with minimizing risk. Still, as we all know, companies come and go. What's solid today may not be in the future. I'm no financial wiz but there's always a trade-off in every decision, especially at the high finance/mega-corp level.

I think the trend of the cable business may be what's making Comcast unappealing for Murdoch. If he wants stock then it's reasonable to think he wants a suitor that has a better upside.

(05-10-2018 12:28 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 07:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 06:56 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  But again, Murdoch doesn't WANT cash. He wants stock, and seeing as he's in a position to where they don't NEED to sell, I think Comcast is wasting their time.

Yes, some seem to think that "cash" is inherently better than "stock". But not necessarily. E.g., I'd much rather get a million shares of Disney stock at $50 a share than $50 million in cash.

As long as that "stock" is stable and backed by a huge market cap/robust cash flow with minimizing risk. Still, as we all know, companies come and go. What's solid today may not be in the future. I'm no financial wiz but there's always a trade-off in every decision, especially at the high finance/mega-corp level.

I think the trend of the cable business may be what's making Comcast unappealing for Murdoch. If he wants stock then it's reasonable to think he wants a suitor that has a better upside.

Murdoch operates in a macro picture business world. There have been more than a few super wealthy investors globally who have been seeking safety. Italy's debt crisis is growing (it is a crisis in that their national debt exceeds the GDP of the ECM). Recently one of the Egyptian oil barons converted stock to precious metals. Remember the super wealthy move to cash when things get dicey. And it's not a defensive move but rather an offensive one. They let the average investors take the hit and when prices crash they buy on the cheap. It is not inconceivable that Murdoch realizes that the college sports bubble is nearer to its end than some believe and with the changes coming to cable he's simply looking to cut future losses but do so in a way where he doesn't have to get taxed on capital gains. If this is the case then he will unload FOX Sports, FS1, and FS2 shortly. He'll sit on his cash and blue chip stock and wait until the bubble collapses to get back into whatever business he sees has an upside.

The question that gets overlooked because of the lucrative nature of the Big 10's last rights contract, is who was it that wanted to sign a 6 year deal? Was it the Big 10 or the networks?

I'm thinking it was the networks who had much more data on the trends and changing models of their own industry. It doesn't mean the decline of college football is nigh, but it does mean the days of locker room waterfalls could be. And if it is coming it will be arriving at precisely the wrong time for what many college presidents have been preparing to deal with which is namely a significant drop in enrollment.

The economy right now looks great with unemployment being at an all time low but this wasn't anyone's political victory, but rather the result of retiring Boomers. Retiring Boomers will mean more competition for labor which means that for a while things will boom. Younger people will earn more and while alive in later years Boomer's will spend more. But then as Boomers begin to die out a trend that began with the deaths of the WWII generation will come to completion, namely the loss of the last large individual donors whether that is to philanthropy, education, or athletics. Corporate donors have slowly been taking their place for decades so it won't be the loss of capital per se, but there will be more strings attached to the donations other than good seats. And with the high cost of tuition currently in our schools, and with the post graduation jobs not really paying that well at the entry level, the new generation is weighing the starting pay scale of skilled labor and trade versus the cubicle jobs. It looks now like more are opting for a less expensive path forward in life.

So while school officials like Zenger at Kansas have openly talked about the importance of sports being a lure for incoming students who identify with schools they've seen on TV and want a place that makes them feel good, and that a viable sports program drives admissions, if we should suddenly see the sports rights industry take a decline it will be coming at a very inopportune time for those looking to boost their enrollment via their sports profile.

I think 2023-5 will be far more interesting than just for realignment news. The story that could swamp the importance of any realignment will be just how much these next contracts are going to deliver. I was listening to a representative of Facebook on CNBC yesterday when they specifically asked him about the social media giant entering into sports carriage. He was tepid at best in his response while dissing football outright as a social health problem, criticizing baseball as being way too long, downplaying soccer for having too little action, and zeroing in on basketball as something they might be interested in. And he seemed to believe that would be the case for other Tech style companies.

If FOX is bailing, and the tech companies aren't interested in football, baseball, or soccer, and if we are 6 more years into the retirement years and die off of the Boomers then just how much will ESPN or their competitors want to put into the rights purchases in 2024 and could it be that if the tech companies see an upside in hoops that the ratio of the future sports contracts might be a bit more weighted in that direction? Let's say in 2024 that basketball might be more like 35 to 40% of the revenue package and football might be more like 65% to 60% of it.

What this board has not discussed much is the possibility that the tech companies may be interested in one sport, which in the words of the Facebook rep puts the audience closer to the action and has continual play with something happening every few seconds instead of every few minutes or every half hour.

I'm a big football first guy and an old coot in that I still love baseball, but the SEC put an emphasis on basketball in Slive's last year as commissioner. The last couple of years it's paid off for us in the post season.

So perhaps 6 years was chosen for contract renewal on the Big 10 precisely because it will be a pivotal time for trends and demographic shifts in the marketplace. And because leadership in the conferences are wrestling with changing culture and trying to hedge their bets. ESPN has the ACCN and SECN locked up and the T1 & T2 of the ACC and the T2 of the SEC into the 2030's so they've hedged their bets too but in a different direction. Should the tech companies get into college football the value and cost will go up and ESPN will have pulled of a coup by sewing that product up for that duration. But if the tech companies take a pass on college football then those contracts could be locking them into rates which while not high, are also not flexible.

Realignment therefore is very likely on hold. Why be in a rush to take Oklahoma and pay out huge sums for a short term gain which ends when Boomers have passed? Remember the oldest Boomer's turn 80 in 2026. In 2024 Kansas might have a bigger upside, unless they've gone broke spending 315 million on football renovations. Oh the irony!

(05-10-2018 01:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 12:28 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 07:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 06:56 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  But again, Murdoch doesn't WANT cash. He wants stock, and seeing as he's in a position to where they don't NEED to sell, I think Comcast is wasting their time.

Yes, some seem to think that "cash" is inherently better than "stock". But not necessarily. E.g., I'd much rather get a million shares of Disney stock at $50 a share than $50 million in cash.

As long as that "stock" is stable and backed by a huge market cap/robust cash flow with minimizing risk. Still, as we all know, companies come and go. What's solid today may not be in the future. I'm no financial wiz but there's always a trade-off in every decision, especially at the high finance/mega-corp level.

I think the trend of the cable business may be what's making Comcast unappealing for Murdoch. If he wants stock then it's reasonable to think he wants a suitor that has a better upside.

Murdoch operates in a macro picture business world. There have been more than a few super wealthy investors globally who have been seeking safety. Italy's debt crisis is growing (it is a crisis in that their national debt exceeds the GDP of the ECM). Recently one of the Egyptian oil barons converted stock to precious metals. Remember the super wealthy move to cash when things get dicey. And it's not a defensive move but rather an offensive one. They let the average investors take the hit and when prices crash they buy on the cheap. It is not inconceivable that Murdoch realizes that the college sports bubble is nearer to its end than some believe and with the changes coming to cable he's simply looking to cut future losses but do so in a way where he doesn't have to get taxed on capital gains. If this is the case then he will unload FOX Sports, FS1, and FS2 shortly. He'll sit on his cash and blue chip stock and wait until the bubble collapses to get back into whatever business he sees has an upside.

The question that gets overlooked because of the lucrative nature of the Big 10's last rights contract, is who was it that wanted to sign a 6 year deal? Was it the Big 10 or the networks?

I'm thinking it was the networks who had much more data on the trends and changing models of their own industry. It doesn't mean the decline of college football is nigh, but it does mean the days of locker room waterfalls could be. And if it is coming it will be arriving at precisely the wrong time for what many college presidents have been preparing to deal with which is namely a significant drop in enrollment.

The economy right now looks great with unemployment being at an all time low but this wasn't anyone's political victory, but rather the result of retiring Boomers. Retiring Boomers will mean more competition for labor which means that for a while things will boom. Younger people will earn more and while alive in later years Boomer's will spend more. But then as Boomers begin to die out a trend that began with the deaths of the WWII generation will come to completion, namely the loss of the last large individual donors whether that is to philanthropy, education, or athletics. Corporate donors have slowly been taking their place for decades so it won't be the loss of capital per se, but there will be more strings attached to the donations other than good seats. And with the high cost of tuition currently in our schools, and with the post graduation jobs not really paying that well at the entry level, the new generation is weighing the starting pay scale of skilled labor and trade versus the cubicle jobs. It looks now like more are opting for a less expensive path forward in life.

So while school officials like Zenger at Kansas have openly talked about the importance of sports being a lure for incoming students who identify with schools they've seen on TV and want a place that makes them feel good, and that a viable sports program drives admissions, if we should suddenly see the sports rights industry take a decline it will be coming at a very inopportune time for those looking to boost their enrollment via their sports profile.

I think 2023-5 will be far more interesting than just for realignment news. The story that could swamp the importance of any realignment will be just how much these next contracts are going to deliver. I was listening to a representative of Facebook on CNBC yesterday when they specifically asked him about the social media giant entering into sports carriage. He was tepid at best in his response while dissing football outright as a social health problem, criticizing baseball as being way too long, downplaying soccer for having too little action, and zeroing in on basketball as something they might be interested in. And he seemed to believe that would be the case for other Tech style companies.

If FOX is bailing, and the tech companies aren't interested in football, baseball, or soccer, and if we are 6 more years into the retirement years and die off of the Boomers then just how much will ESPN or their competitors want to put into the rights purchases in 2024 and could it be that if the tech companies see an upside in hoops that the ratio of the future sports contracts might be a bit more weighted in that direction? Let's say in 2024 that basketball might be more like 35 to 40% of the revenue package and football might be more like 65% to 60% of it.

What this board has not discussed much is the possibility that the tech companies may be interested in one sport, which in the words of the Facebook rep puts the audience closer to the action and has continual play with something happening every few seconds instead of every few minutes or every half hour.

I'm a big football first guy and an old coot in that I still love baseball, but the SEC put an emphasis on basketball in Slive's last year as commissioner. The last couple of years it's paid off for us in the post season.

So perhaps 6 years was chosen for contract renewal on the Big 10 precisely because it will be a pivotal time for trends and demographic shifts in the marketplace. And because leadership in the conferences are wrestling with changing culture and trying to hedge their bets. ESPN has the ACCN and SECN locked up and the T1 & T2 of the ACC and the T2 of the SEC into the 2030's so they've hedged their bets too but in a different direction. Should the tech companies get into college football the value and cost will go up and ESPN will have pulled of a coup by sewing that product up for that duration. But if the tech companies take a pass on college football then those contracts could be locking them into rates which while not high, are also not flexible.

Realignment therefore is very likely on hold. Why be in a rush to take Oklahoma and pay out huge sums for a short term gain which ends when Boomers have passed? Remember the oldest Boomer's turn 80 in 2026. In 2024 Kansas might have a bigger upside, unless they've gone broke spending 315 million on football renovations. Oh the irony!

If the theory is correct that college basketball is where the companies are going (not college football) than that would change the dynamics bigly. Brand new FB upstarts would be screwed.

(05-14-2018 06:03 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 01:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-10-2018 12:28 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 07:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-09-2018 06:56 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  But again, Murdoch doesn't WANT cash. He wants stock, and seeing as he's in a position to where they don't NEED to sell, I think Comcast is wasting their time.

Yes, some seem to think that "cash" is inherently better than "stock". But not necessarily. E.g., I'd much rather get a million shares of Disney stock at $50 a share than $50 million in cash.

As long as that "stock" is stable and backed by a huge market cap/robust cash flow with minimizing risk. Still, as we all know, companies come and go. What's solid today may not be in the future. I'm no financial wiz but there's always a trade-off in every decision, especially at the high finance/mega-corp level.

I think the trend of the cable business may be what's making Comcast unappealing for Murdoch. If he wants stock then it's reasonable to think he wants a suitor that has a better upside.

Murdoch operates in a macro picture business world. There have been more than a few super wealthy investors globally who have been seeking safety. Italy's debt crisis is growing (it is a crisis in that their national debt exceeds the GDP of the ECM). Recently one of the Egyptian oil barons converted stock to precious metals. Remember the super wealthy move to cash when things get dicey. And it's not a defensive move but rather an offensive one. They let the average investors take the hit and when prices crash they buy on the cheap. It is not inconceivable that Murdoch realizes that the college sports bubble is nearer to its end than some believe and with the changes coming to cable he's simply looking to cut future losses but do so in a way where he doesn't have to get taxed on capital gains. If this is the case then he will unload FOX Sports, FS1, and FS2 shortly. He'll sit on his cash and blue chip stock and wait until the bubble collapses to get back into whatever business he sees has an upside.

The question that gets overlooked because of the lucrative nature of the Big 10's last rights contract, is who was it that wanted to sign a 6 year deal? Was it the Big 10 or the networks?

I'm thinking it was the networks who had much more data on the trends and changing models of their own industry. It doesn't mean the decline of college football is nigh, but it does mean the days of locker room waterfalls could be. And if it is coming it will be arriving at precisely the wrong time for what many college presidents have been preparing to deal with which is namely a significant drop in enrollment.

The economy right now looks great with unemployment being at an all time low but this wasn't anyone's political victory, but rather the result of retiring Boomers. Retiring Boomers will mean more competition for labor which means that for a while things will boom. Younger people will earn more and while alive in later years Boomer's will spend more. But then as Boomers begin to die out a trend that began with the deaths of the WWII generation will come to completion, namely the loss of the last large individual donors whether that is to philanthropy, education, or athletics. Corporate donors have slowly been taking their place for decades so it won't be the loss of capital per se, but there will be more strings attached to the donations other than good seats. And with the high cost of tuition currently in our schools, and with the post graduation jobs not really paying that well at the entry level, the new generation is weighing the starting pay scale of skilled labor and trade versus the cubicle jobs. It looks now like more are opting for a less expensive path forward in life.

So while school officials like Zenger at Kansas have openly talked about the importance of sports being a lure for incoming students who identify with schools they've seen on TV and want a place that makes them feel good, and that a viable sports program drives admissions, if we should suddenly see the sports rights industry take a decline it will be coming at a very inopportune time for those looking to boost their enrollment via their sports profile.

I think 2023-5 will be far more interesting than just for realignment news. The story that could swamp the importance of any realignment will be just how much these next contracts are going to deliver. I was listening to a representative of Facebook on CNBC yesterday when they specifically asked him about the social media giant entering into sports carriage. He was tepid at best in his response while dissing football outright as a social health problem, criticizing baseball as being way too long, downplaying soccer for having too little action, and zeroing in on basketball as something they might be interested in. And he seemed to believe that would be the case for other Tech style companies.

If FOX is bailing, and the tech companies aren't interested in football, baseball, or soccer, and if we are 6 more years into the retirement years and die off of the Boomers then just how much will ESPN or their competitors want to put into the rights purchases in 2024 and could it be that if the tech companies see an upside in hoops that the ratio of the future sports contracts might be a bit more weighted in that direction? Let's say in 2024 that basketball might be more like 35 to 40% of the revenue package and football might be more like 65% to 60% of it.

What this board has not discussed much is the possibility that the tech companies may be interested in one sport, which in the words of the Facebook rep puts the audience closer to the action and has continual play with something happening every few seconds instead of every few minutes or every half hour.

I'm a big football first guy and an old coot in that I still love baseball, but the SEC put an emphasis on basketball in Slive's last year as commissioner. The last couple of years it's paid off for us in the post season.

So perhaps 6 years was chosen for contract renewal on the Big 10 precisely because it will be a pivotal time for trends and demographic shifts in the marketplace. And because leadership in the conferences are wrestling with changing culture and trying to hedge their bets. ESPN has the ACCN and SECN locked up and the T1 & T2 of the ACC and the T2 of the SEC into the 2030's so they've hedged their bets too but in a different direction. Should the tech companies get into college football the value and cost will go up and ESPN will have pulled of a coup by sewing that product up for that duration. But if the tech companies take a pass on college football then those contracts could be locking them into rates which while not high, are also not flexible.

Realignment therefore is very likely on hold. Why be in a rush to take Oklahoma and pay out huge sums for a short term gain which ends when Boomers have passed? Remember the oldest Boomer's turn 80 in 2026. In 2024 Kansas might have a bigger upside, unless they've gone broke spending 315 million on football renovations. Oh the irony!

If the theory is correct that college basketball is where the companies are going (not college football) than that would change the dynamics bigly. Brand new FB upstarts would be screwed.

That's quite possible. But it also depends upon what region of the country they are located in. The Southeast and Southwest will give up the pigskin when you pry their cold dead fingers off the laces. Meanwhile in the East Buffy and Jody will be donning their lacrosse gear and out west the just won't care at all. Up North they will want to cling to football and defend hockey (a high concussion rate also). True Southerners and guys from the Rust Belt have far more in common with each other than they do guys from the East or West. They hunt and we hunt. They fish and we fish. They tailgate and we tailgate. They reenact and we reenact. They are proud of their heritage and so are we. If they weren't so easy to sunburn and didn't eat brats we'd be fine.

https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Dail...-RSNs.aspx

Quote:Disney’s sales process for Fox’ 22 RSNs took a big step forward last week when the company sent the official bid book to prospective bidders, according to several sources. Said to be more than 150 pages, the book was sent to networks, digital companies, distributors and investment banks who agreed to sign a non-disclosure agreement. Allen & Co. and JP Morgan Chase are handling the sale for Disney, sources said. It is not known exactly which companies received the book, but one surprise is that Comcast did not, as sources say that it found the some of the NDA’s conditions to be too onerous. It has been long assumed that Comcast was interested in buying the Fox RSNs in markets where it operates a dominant cable system: Atlanta, Detroit, Miami and Tampa. Comcast could change course and sign the NDA later in the sale process, sources say. Charter also has played down speculation that it is interested in buying the RSNs. Fox, which has run the 22 RSNs and obviously helped prepare the book, is believed to be interested in buying the RSNs back.

INTERESTED PARTIES: Other media companies that could be interested include Sinclair, which sees Fox’ local sports channels as a complement to the local broadcast stations that it owns. AT&T already owns several RSNs and is believed to be interested. On the digital front, Amazon and Google are said to be interested, as are private equity groups like The Blackstone Group and BlackRock Distributors. Sources also suggested that agencies like Endeavor and CAA could kick the tires. Regulators said that Disney must sell the 22 RSNs within 90 days of the closing of its $71.3B acquisition of 21st Century Fox’ entertainment assets. The deal could close before the end of the year. The RSNs have been valued at north of $20B.

(10-21-2018 04:37 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Dail...-RSNs.aspx

Quote:Regulators said that Disney must sell the 22 RSNs within 90 days of the closing of its $71.3B acquisition of 21st Century Fox’ entertainment assets. The deal could close before the end of the year. The RSNs have been valued at north of $20B.

Does anyone understand why Disney bought the Fox RSNs in the first place?

Did they expect the regulators to rule the other way, that combining the Fox RSNs with the Disney empire would be okay? IOW, combining FoxSports1 with ESPN's properties would be too far, but FSOhio would be okay? OR, related, they figured the regulators would hack something off, so you include some unnecessary stuff to protect the crown jewels of the merger?

Was this something the Murdochs pushed, to maximize the amount of Disney stock they ended up with? (Disney purchased Fox with Disney stock, so the more Fox they purchase, the more Disney stock they hand over?) So Disney buys the Fox RSNs with Disney stock, then sells them to Fox for cash, which Fox can probably borrow with the RSNs as security?

Anybody have a clue?

(10-21-2018 06:41 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-21-2018 04:37 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Dail...-RSNs.aspx

Quote:Regulators said that Disney must sell the 22 RSNs within 90 days of the closing of its $71.3B acquisition of 21st Century Fox’ entertainment assets. The deal could close before the end of the year. The RSNs have been valued at north of $20B.

Does anyone understand why Disney bought the Fox RSNs in the first place?

Did they expect the regulators to rule the other way, that combining the Fox RSNs with the Disney empire would be okay? IOW, combining FoxSports1 with ESPN's properties would be too far, but FSOhio would be okay? OR, related, they figured the regulators would hack something off, so you include some unnecessary stuff to protect the crown jewels of the merger?

Was this something the Murdochs pushed, to maximize the amount of Disney stock they ended up with? (Disney purchased Fox with Disney stock, so the more Fox they purchase, the more Disney stock they hand over?) So Disney buys the Fox RSNs with Disney stock, then sells them to Fox for cash, which Fox can probably borrow with the RSNs as security?

Anybody have a clue?

I believe that taking the RSNs out of the deal would have required (a) restructuring of the whole deal valuation, which would have opened up bidding to Comcast and others again and (b) a restart to the regulatory approval process. Basically, taking the RSNs out of the deal would have reset everything to square one, which Disney and Fox wanted to avoid.

(10-21-2018 07:49 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-21-2018 06:41 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-21-2018 04:37 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Dail...-RSNs.aspx

Quote:Regulators said that Disney must sell the 22 RSNs within 90 days of the closing of its $71.3B acquisition of 21st Century Fox’ entertainment assets. The deal could close before the end of the year. The RSNs have been valued at north of $20B.

Does anyone understand why Disney bought the Fox RSNs in the first place?

Did they expect the regulators to rule the other way, that combining the Fox RSNs with the Disney empire would be okay? IOW, combining FoxSports1 with ESPN's properties would be too far, but FSOhio would be okay? OR, related, they figured the regulators would hack something off, so you include some unnecessary stuff to protect the crown jewels of the merger?

Was this something the Murdochs pushed, to maximize the amount of Disney stock they ended up with? (Disney purchased Fox with Disney stock, so the more Fox they purchase, the more Disney stock they hand over?) So Disney buys the Fox RSNs with Disney stock, then sells them to Fox for cash, which Fox can probably borrow with the RSNs as security?

Anybody have a clue?

I believe that taking the RSNs out of the deal would have required (a) restructuring of the whole deal valuation, which would have opened up bidding to Comcast and others again and (b) a restart to the regulatory approval process. Basically, taking the RSNs out of the deal would have reset everything to square one, which Disney and Fox wanted to avoid.

I think first, Disney thought it might have a shot at keeping at least SOME of the RSNs. But, that didn't work out for them. Secondly as originally structured it was going to be an all-stock deal. As such, Murdoch could "cash out" of the RSNs but defer the taxes on an all-stock deal. But, that didn't quite work out for them either when Comcast started "bidding"....so Disney had to throw in some cash. So Murdoch's tax bill will be bigger than he figured BUT the price he ended up with because of Comcast's bidding makes up for most or all of that.

(10-21-2018 07:49 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-21-2018 06:41 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-21-2018 04:37 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Dail...-RSNs.aspx

Quote:Regulators said that Disney must sell the 22 RSNs within 90 days of the closing of its $71.3B acquisition of 21st Century Fox’ entertainment assets. The deal could close before the end of the year. The RSNs have been valued at north of $20B.

Does anyone understand why Disney bought the Fox RSNs in the first place?

Did they expect the regulators to rule the other way, that combining the Fox RSNs with the Disney empire would be okay? IOW, combining FoxSports1 with ESPN's properties would be too far, but FSOhio would be okay? OR, related, they figured the regulators would hack something off, so you include some unnecessary stuff to protect the crown jewels of the merger?

Was this something the Murdochs pushed, to maximize the amount of Disney stock they ended up with? (Disney purchased Fox with Disney stock, so the more Fox they purchase, the more Disney stock they hand over?) So Disney buys the Fox RSNs with Disney stock, then sells them to Fox for cash, which Fox can probably borrow with the RSNs as security?

Anybody have a clue?

I believe that taking the RSNs out of the deal would have required (a) restructuring of the whole deal valuation, which would have opened up bidding to Comcast and others again and (b) a restart to the regulatory approval process. Basically, taking the RSNs out of the deal would have reset everything to square one, which Disney and Fox wanted to avoid.

What I mean is, if Disney didn't intend to keep the RSNs, why weren't they included in "New Fox" or "Diet Fox" from the beginning, along with Fox Broadcasting, Fox Sports 1 and 2 and Fox News.

But maybe I think I figured it out.
Either Disney intended to keep the RSNs, and the regulators blocked that, (and then yes, it doesn't make sense to go back to square one and redo the deal)

Or

Disney and Fox bundled the RSNs into the deal to make it harder for Comcast to swoop in.

(10-21-2018 07:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-21-2018 07:49 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-21-2018 06:41 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-21-2018 04:37 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Dail...-RSNs.aspx

Quote:Regulators said that Disney must sell the 22 RSNs within 90 days of the closing of its $71.3B acquisition of 21st Century Fox’ entertainment assets. The deal could close before the end of the year. The RSNs have been valued at north of $20B.

Does anyone understand why Disney bought the Fox RSNs in the first place?

Did they expect the regulators to rule the other way, that combining the Fox RSNs with the Disney empire would be okay? IOW, combining FoxSports1 with ESPN's properties would be too far, but FSOhio would be okay? OR, related, they figured the regulators would hack something off, so you include some unnecessary stuff to protect the crown jewels of the merger?

Was this something the Murdochs pushed, to maximize the amount of Disney stock they ended up with? (Disney purchased Fox with Disney stock, so the more Fox they purchase, the more Disney stock they hand over?) So Disney buys the Fox RSNs with Disney stock, then sells them to Fox for cash, which Fox can probably borrow with the RSNs as security?

Anybody have a clue?

I believe that taking the RSNs out of the deal would have required (a) restructuring of the whole deal valuation, which would have opened up bidding to Comcast and others again and (b) a restart to the regulatory approval process. Basically, taking the RSNs out of the deal would have reset everything to square one, which Disney and Fox wanted to avoid.

What I mean is, if Disney didn't intend to keep the RSNs, why weren't they included in "New Fox" or "Diet Fox" from the beginning, along with Fox Broadcasting, Fox Sports 1 and 2 and Fox News.

But maybe I think I figured it out.
Either Disney intended to keep the RSNs, and the regulators blocked that, (and then yes, it doesn't make sense to go back to square one and redo the deal)

Or

Disney and Fox bundled the RSNs into the deal to make it harder for Comcast to swoop in.

Or, Fox wanted to sell the RSNs and put them into the deal for that reason.

And, as you mentioned earlier, the more assets Fox put into the deal, the more Disney stock they got in return.

(10-21-2018 10:30 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-21-2018 07:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-21-2018 07:49 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-21-2018 06:41 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-21-2018 04:37 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Dail...-RSNs.aspx

Does anyone understand why Disney bought the Fox RSNs in the first place?

Did they expect the regulators to rule the other way, that combining the Fox RSNs with the Disney empire would be okay? IOW, combining FoxSports1 with ESPN's properties would be too far, but FSOhio would be okay? OR, related, they figured the regulators would hack something off, so you include some unnecessary stuff to protect the crown jewels of the merger?

Was this something the Murdochs pushed, to maximize the amount of Disney stock they ended up with? (Disney purchased Fox with Disney stock, so the more Fox they purchase, the more Disney stock they hand over?) So Disney buys the Fox RSNs with Disney stock, then sells them to Fox for cash, which Fox can probably borrow with the RSNs as security?

Anybody have a clue?

I believe that taking the RSNs out of the deal would have required (a) restructuring of the whole deal valuation, which would have opened up bidding to Comcast and others again and (b) a restart to the regulatory approval process. Basically, taking the RSNs out of the deal would have reset everything to square one, which Disney and Fox wanted to avoid.

What I mean is, if Disney didn't intend to keep the RSNs, why weren't they included in "New Fox" or "Diet Fox" from the beginning, along with Fox Broadcasting, Fox Sports 1 and 2 and Fox News.

But maybe I think I figured it out.
Either Disney intended to keep the RSNs, and the regulators blocked that, (and then yes, it doesn't make sense to go back to square one and redo the deal)

Or

Disney and Fox bundled the RSNs into the deal to make it harder for Comcast to swoop in.

Or, Fox wanted to sell the RSNs and put them into the deal for that reason.

And, as you mentioned earlier, the more assets Fox put into the deal, the more Disney stock they got in return.

That was my understanding - Fox simply wanted out of the RSN business.

(05-10-2018 12:28 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  As long as that "stock" is stable and backed by a huge market cap/robust cash flow with minimizing risk. Still, as we all know, companies come and go. What's solid today may not be in the future. I'm no financial wiz but there's always a trade-off in every decision, especially at the high finance/mega-corp level.

IBM: "Nobody gets fired for ordering IBM Computers!"
Xerox: "Why would you do your xeroxing on any other machine?"
Kodak: "Grandma will always want pictures of the grandkids!"

More to the point is that if you still have businesses, and they include businesses that are likely to generate losses on a regular basis in the future ... like Murdoch newspapers which are held more to influence public opinion than as a long term financial win ... it makes a lot of sense to get stock and sell it when there are tax costs to offset the capital gains, so long as you expect the company to be solid over the intermediate term. Somewhere between 1 and 10 years is plenty to cash out that stock swap.

(10-21-2018 10:37 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(10-21-2018 10:30 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-21-2018 07:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-21-2018 07:49 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-21-2018 06:41 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Does anyone understand why Disney bought the Fox RSNs in the first place?

Did they expect the regulators to rule the other way, that combining the Fox RSNs with the Disney empire would be okay? IOW, combining FoxSports1 with ESPN's properties would be too far, but FSOhio would be okay? OR, related, they figured the regulators would hack something off, so you include some unnecessary stuff to protect the crown jewels of the merger?

Was this something the Murdochs pushed, to maximize the amount of Disney stock they ended up with? (Disney purchased Fox with Disney stock, so the more Fox they purchase, the more Disney stock they hand over?) So Disney buys the Fox RSNs with Disney stock, then sells them to Fox for cash, which Fox can probably borrow with the RSNs as security?

Anybody have a clue?

I believe that taking the RSNs out of the deal would have required (a) restructuring of the whole deal valuation, which would have opened up bidding to Comcast and others again and (b) a restart to the regulatory approval process. Basically, taking the RSNs out of the deal would have reset everything to square one, which Disney and Fox wanted to avoid.

What I mean is, if Disney didn't intend to keep the RSNs, why weren't they included in "New Fox" or "Diet Fox" from the beginning, along with Fox Broadcasting, Fox Sports 1 and 2 and Fox News.

But maybe I think I figured it out.
Either Disney intended to keep the RSNs, and the regulators blocked that, (and then yes, it doesn't make sense to go back to square one and redo the deal)

Or

Disney and Fox bundled the RSNs into the deal to make it harder for Comcast to swoop in.

Or, Fox wanted to sell the RSNs and put them into the deal for that reason.

And, as you mentioned earlier, the more assets Fox put into the deal, the more Disney stock they got in return.

That was my understanding - Fox simply wanted out of the RSN business.

I believe Disney wanted the RSN's but were willing to "compromise" by not keeping them long term. The RSN's were the whipped cream on the Fox sundae.

I have read Fox may buy them back from Disney

(10-22-2018 09:09 AM)solohawks Wrote:  I believe Disney wanted the RSN's but were willing to "compromise" by not keeping them long term. The RSN's were the whipped cream on the Fox sundae.

I have read Fox may buy them back from Disney

It looks like you may be on the money.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/26/rupert-m...isney.html

Quote:"New Fox," the company that will remain after Rupert Murdoch sells $71.3 billion worth of 21st Century Fox assets to Disney, is the leading contender to buy back the RSNs it "sold" to Disney as part of the larger transaction, according to people familiar with the matter. Those networks broadcast the games of 44 professional teams from Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association and the National Hockey League

Formal offers haven't come in yet. As Sports Business Daily reported, Disney only recently sent out its bid book to prospective buyers. News that Fox was considering buying back the channels was previously reported by The Information.

But people familiar with the process, who asked not to be named because the negotiations are private, say New Fox is the most serious buyer for all the networks. That's a cleaner outcome for Disney than selling the networks piecemeal, which would bring in smaller buyers and private equity firms.

Disney is a motivated seller because it can't get its larger deal for Fox done without divesting the networks. The Department of Justice forced Disney, which owns ESPN, to sell the networks to alleviate concerns about too much sports programming power in the hands of one company. In fact, the networks might never even change hands, depending on when Disney's larger deal of Fox closes.

Winning back the sports networks would be a coup for Rupert Murdoch, who could get the RSNs at a lower price than the value at which he sold them to Disney — a price that was driven up nearly $20 billion by Comcast's rival bid for the bundle of Fox assets. There may also be beneficial tax benefits to Murdoch, related to tax-deductible amortization, one of the people said.

(10-29-2018 02:02 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(10-22-2018 09:09 AM)solohawks Wrote:  I believe Disney wanted the RSN's but were willing to "compromise" by not keeping them long term. The RSN's were the whipped cream on the Fox sundae.

I have read Fox may buy them back from Disney

It looks like you may be on the money.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/26/rupert-m...isney.html

Quote:"New Fox," the company that will remain after Rupert Murdoch sells $71.3 billion worth of 21st Century Fox assets to Disney, is the leading contender to buy back the RSNs it "sold" to Disney as part of the larger transaction, according to people familiar with the matter. Those networks broadcast the games of 44 professional teams from Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association and the National Hockey League

Formal offers haven't come in yet. As Sports Business Daily reported, Disney only recently sent out its bid book to prospective buyers. News that Fox was considering buying back the channels was previously reported by The Information.

But people familiar with the process, who asked not to be named because the negotiations are private, say New Fox is the most serious buyer for all the networks. That's a cleaner outcome for Disney than selling the networks piecemeal, which would bring in smaller buyers and private equity firms.

Disney is a motivated seller because it can't get its larger deal for Fox done without divesting the networks. The Department of Justice forced Disney, which owns ESPN, to sell the networks to alleviate concerns about too much sports programming power in the hands of one company. In fact, the networks might never even change hands, depending on when Disney's larger deal of Fox closes.

Winning back the sports networks would be a coup for Rupert Murdoch, who could get the RSNs at a lower price than the value at which he sold them to Disney — a price that was driven up nearly $20 billion by Comcast's rival bid for the bundle of Fox assets. There may also be beneficial tax benefits to Murdoch, related to tax-deductible amortization, one of the people said.

Murdoch didn't become a multi-billionaire by being an idiot....

Quote:The New York Yankees could buy back the YES Network as Disney seeks to offload 22 US-based regional sports networks (RSNs) as part of a US$71.3 billion deal with Fox, according to a report from Bloomberg.

The Major League Baseball (MLB) franchise apparently is in talks to reacquire ownership of the channel, which it sold to 21st Century Fox four years ago.

Disney, which already owns ESPN, has been ordered by the US Department of Justice to sell the RSNs to avoid the broadcast giant gaining too much power over the sports broadcasting market.

Fox – now dubbed ‘New Fox’ – agreed to sell its assets to Disney last December, and was thought to be leading the running to buy back the RSNs at a cheaper price.

However, the latest reports from the US claim that both Fox and its rival Comcast did not submit a bid by this week’s deadline.

http://www.sportspromedia.com/news/repor...e-deadline