Why are you stupid motherfuckers posting gigantic spoilers in this thread? If I hadn't already seen the film, I'd be livid.
Why is Comcast desperate? I mean, what does this take even mean?Comcast is offering cash instead of stock, and WITHOUT assuming debt, let alone paying the fee that it'd have with Disney. Later today they were hoping for a "deal" with Disney. They were obviously DESPERATE to push a narrative, and push it fast. This AT&T and Time Warner bribery scandal that just blow up explains one hell lot. Comcast is screwed. They were just barking and desperate. Iger probably KNEW about this because well, this kind of insanity probably leaks among the higher circles before we get to hear it. Shit hit the fan. Comcast's attempts to lure 21st CF shareholders took the final blow with this latest AT&T TW scandal, imho.
This was posted back in May 2nd and basically broke what was announced "exclusively" by Reuters:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/comcast-ceo-wants-fox-assets-disney-is-purchasing-gasparino
Basically, this seems almost like Comcast is forcing the judge's hand to NOT approve Time Warner's deal as is. This might mean something even crazier here, so I will throw an wild guess. It makes no sense for Comcast to announce this NOW. It sort of presses the judge on the AT&T WB deal to oppose sanctions to avoid big monopolies. What if... what if that's what Comcast is actually aiming for?
Let me explain: one of the alternatives that could happen with the WB and AT&T deal is that the judge rules that WB is too big as it is and it needs to be sold in parts. What if Comcast is forcing the hand of the judge so a compromise like that is made and they give up on 21st Century Fox but go all in for WB Pictures and DC Comics, for example? That's probably non-sense, but Comcast announcing this NOW and not after the ruling is done seems like almost they are playing a different game here and not actually going for 21st Century Fox.
You sir are playing 3 dimensional chess while we are all playing checkers...
And yes I think your dad has a ton of merit and now that I read it it's all Ivan think is correct
Warner Brothers has been an afterthought in this deal. Any divestment required will be Tuner and/or HBO. ATT will be able to purchase WB without a problem.
Why is Comcast desperate? I mean, what does this take even mean?
They submitted a higher bid for Sky. They will beat Disney out for Sky. They are now mulling going all in on Fox's other assets in addition to acquiring Sky.
The "narrative" is, Comcast is an aggressive acquirer (as history has shown) and Roberts has no plans on making it easy for Disney.
We hope so for ZattMurdock's sanity.
True, I'm not saying that the deal makes sense in the short term but I could still see Comcast snatching up Sky and then leaving Disney buying the rest of the Fox assets on the table at a higher price owing to the potential bidding situation. That would also be a real 'win/win' situation for Comcast.
Isn't Sky also a big part of the deal for Disney though too? They've not only offered Fox help in buying Sky, Disney even offered to outright buy Sky News on its own first in order to resolve any commonality issues the UK Government had just so that the Fox purchase could go through. They wouldn't be offering to go anywhere near that far if they weren't serious about wanting the whole thing.Sky is literally the only part of the deal that really feels like it makes a ton of sense for Comcast.
They will beat Disney out for Sky. They are now mulling going all in on Fox's other assets in addition to acquiring Sky.
The "narrative" is, Comcast is an aggressive acquirer (as history has shown) and Roberts has no plans on making it easy for Disney.
I don't think after the AT&T scandal that's possible. The whole plan was based around the AT&T merger going through.
I have a hard time thinking the AT&T scandal is honestly going to affect anything, but that's just how I feel about most leaks lately.
Judge Leon is still going to rule based on the merits, not on political considerations. In fact, he rejected arguments regarding Trump's intervention in the case. If there were bribery charges (and although I do not practice in this field, my understanding is it is unlikely to amount to a chargeable offense), those offenses should be prosecuted independently. If the case is in some remote reason ruled on based on the specter of bribery charges, then it would also not set a regulatory precedent on the types of mergers that are allowed--the precedent would be based on those bribery charges and would not create an antitrust precedent.Brazil is a clusterfuck and bribery ended a shitload of politicians and private CEOs here. If AT&T and Time Warner's dea go unscathered after this, then the USA can just literally give up. AT&T was just caught red handed with bribery. Not lobbying mind you, bribery. The merger will obviously take a big blow, and those "dependent" of a positive outcome of it as well. Disney / 21 CF are simply way better positioned than AT&T / TW and Comcast mind you at this point.
The Justice Department said it abandoned the case after U.S. District Judge William Walls ruled last week that the trial evidence and testimony persuaded him that Menendez wasn't guilty on four criminal counts. Walls left in place other bribery and fraud charges but bowed out of the case. The retrial had been assigned to U.S. District Judge Jose Linares.
In the last two decades, legal experts say, the United States Supreme Court has slowly eroded the country's body of corruption laws, shifting the jurisprudential landscape in a manner that has raised the bar when it comes to prosecuting politicians accused of dabbling in dubious behavior. The experts say that conduct that was once clearly deemed to be illegal has now been redefined as politics as usual.
...
But the court's most substantial opinion on corruption came last year when it redefined the very nature of political graft in throwing out the bribery conviction of Bob McDonnell, the former Republican governor of Virginia. A jury determined that Mr. McDonnell had helped a wealthy businessman by setting him up with influential people in an effort to promote a dietary supplement he was selling. But even though the businessman had given the governor several gifts and loans, the court concluded it was not illegal. It ruled that Mr. McDonnell's part of the arrangement — making introductions and setting up meetings — was not in fact a betrayal of his office, or what the law describes as an "official act."
...
"The McDonnell case opened the door to the point where selling access is now essentially legal," said Jessica Tillipman, an assistant dean at the George Washington University Law School who teaches an anti-corruption seminar. Ms. Tillipman noted that the government has repeatedly gone after companies like Walmart and Alcoa for bribing foreign officials. "But our Supreme Court," she added, "has made it incredibly difficult to prosecute corruption in our own country."
Mr. Menendez, for example, stood accused of taking gifts and contributions from Salomon Melgen, a Florida eye doctor, in exchange for helping him get visas for his girlfriends and solving several complicated billing disputes. At the trial, Mr. Menendez's lawyers mounted a McDonnell-style defense, arguing that he never performed an official act for Dr. Melgen. Though the lawyers admitted that Mr. Menendez did do favors for the doctor, they described them as an ordinary form of retail politics. The senator, they said, had simply — and innocently — offered generosity to a friend.
Judge Leon is still going to rule based on the merits, not on political considerations. In fact, he rejected arguments regarding Trump's intervention in the case. If there were bribery charges (and although I do not practice in this field, my understanding is it is unlikely to amount to a chargeable offense), those offenses should be prosecuted independently. If the case is in some remote reason ruled on based on the specter of bribery charges, then it would also not set a regulatory precedent on the types of mergers that are allowed--the precedent would be based on those bribery charges and would not create an antitrust precedent.
By the way, bribery of politicians is very hard to win based on Supreme Court precedent. The DOJ dropped bribery charges against Senator Menendez after he was alleged to receive $750,000 directly in exchange for political favors: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ing-charges-against-senator-menendez-jd3bmpv2
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/17/nyregion/menendez-seabrook-corruption-cases-crumbling-.html
To obtain a bribery charge, it would seem it would need to be tied to an official act, such as the DOJ declining to pursue antitrust charges against the merger; but in fact, the DOJ actually did sue against the merger, so the question would be, what public act was obtained via the payments?
...this doesn't even make a lick of sense.The 21st CF move they were desperately barking about depended on AT&T and TW merger happening. All of sudden, Comcast was telling their news website to present a list of demands for a "truce". Meanwhile Iger is like, IDGAF. He knew. All of them knew about this. Not when this would blow up, but that there was no way that AT&T and TW merging would be an easy sailing that would favor Comcast to keep going. It was their last move. And they blew it. And Disney already said that would help Fox in buying the rest of Sky if it was needed. Comcast was collateral on this story, but a big one.
Even though I'm happy about X-Men and the fantastic 4 Coming to the MCU, I just don't want Comcast to be more powerful than it already is.This thread is dripping with irony. When it was announced Disney had intentions of buying Fox, there were cheers. Now, there are sharp attacks. All from moving from one multi billion company to another.
Y'all are just obsessed with them superheroes, huh.
This thread is dripping with irony. When it was announced Disney had intentions of buying Fox, there were cheers. Now, there are sharp attacks. All from moving from one multi billion company to another.
Y'all are just obsessed with them superheroes, huh.
No they just like to seem like edgy and/or enlightened nerds.Everyone pulling for Comcast must not have to deal with Comcast as their service provider
This thread is dripping with irony. When it was announced Disney had intentions of buying Fox, there were cheers. Now, there are sharp attacks. All from moving from one multi billion company to another.
Y'all are just obsessed with them superheroes, huh.
No, people are constantly stating the difference in their situations which others keep ignoring.This thread is dripping with irony. When it was announced Disney had intentions of buying Fox, there were cheers. Now, there are sharp attacks. All from moving from one multi billion company to another.
Y'all are just obsessed with them superheroes, huh.
Everyone pulling for Comcast must not have to deal with Comcast as their service provider
Oh Disney runs Internet and owns a big chunk of cable TV too huh? Yeah I didn't think so.
Ya'll just know the Disney name and assume they are like every other major corporation when Comcast buying the rights vs Disney is like apples and oranges
Disney wants to trap you in their sandbox. They literally are stock piling IP to create a Netflix rival.Oh Disney runs Internet and owns a big chunk of cable TV too huh? Yeah I didn't think so.
Ya'll just know the Disney name and assume they are like every other major corporation when Comcast buying the rights vs Disney is like apples and oranges
Could you explain how? I don't say you are wrong, understand. Just explain why the company founded by a nazi sympathizer and gobbling up literally all of the competition through it's entire existence, is a good guy?
So?Disney wants to trap you in their sandbox. They literally are stock piling IP to create a Netflix rival.
Today, Disney has $55 billion a year in revenues. And for that, it gets a piddly 2.7 times P/S ratio.
Apple is currently at a four times P/S ratio, and probably on its way to a six times ratio in the future — which would put it in line with Google. If Disney got a six times multiple of its Disney as a service $72 billion annual revenue stream — plus a 2.7 times multiple on the legacy cable subscribers, plus extra merchandise and parks revenue it retains (let's assume it's 75 percent of today's $55 billion in annual revenue) — you get to a potential 2023 market capitalization for Disney of $543 billion, compared with $149 billion today.
So if you can't have a monopoly on IP, does it matter who acquires Fox?So?
you can't have a monopoly of IP.
You mention Netflix, what big IP do they own that maintains their control of the market...
Disney is trying to make their IP and service more valuable by packaging it with other IPs.
The service system is the future and everyone is going there, more content is more value for that customer's money.
The alternative is a shitty company that would control the very Internet all competing services are on for many users.
Have fun when Comcast wants to throttle Netflix, Disney, DC, etc just because nobody is getting subscriptions to an exclusive Universal & NBC service.
better hope you are not the portion of Americans without ISP competition.
So if you can't have a monopoly on IP, does it matter who acquires Fox?
Your entire argument is "Comcast has the capability to do nefarious things!" Guess what. As does Disney. Neither company is out to do what's best for consumers. Comcast at least has concessions it has to meet to promote a fair playing field due to its acquisition of NBCU.
Could you explain how? I don't say you are wrong, understand. Just explain why the company founded by a nazi sympathizer and gobbling up literally all of the competition through it's entire existence, is a good guy?
Around this time, Comcast's offer took shape at $34.41 a share, while Disney's offer was up to $66 billion, or $28 a share and the rest in cash. Team Comcast suggested it would be willing to make divestitures of its existing holdings to get a deal done. But Team Fox was concerned about Comcast's suggestion that the sides could maneuver around regulatory hurdles by shifting more assets into New Fox in the face of federal opposition.
The specter of the AT&T-Time Warner merger, which is now being fought out in a Washington, D.C. courtroom, hung heavily over these considerations as the board noted the Justice Department's "unanticipated opposition" to a deal that had far less overlap in operations than would be a factor in a Comcast-Fox combination. Comcast also refused to agree to pay Fox a reverse break-up fee if the deal was scuttled by regulators, according to the filing, although Comcast did offer to agree to allow Fox to walk away from the deal if the Justice Department wound up blocking the AT&T's acquisition of Time Warner.
Jesus Comcast would be a bad choice, this is not just ZOMG my Mahvels need to MCU talking point, as much as I want that
Comcast owns NBC, Universal, and is an ISP
They get Fox stuff, you damn well know it's just to sit on content and control IP
Gate you towards their content, with net neutrality going out the window you know they'll create their own shit, through their own pipeline to fuck the consumer over
Disney is just content, their not an ISP owner, they can't gate you away from content by slowing your speeds
Thats what AT&T is having issues, when your an ISP and trying to gobble up content makers, your really fucking it up
That's why Netflix, Amazon, Google and soon Disney with their service are really only content providers, while the ISPs should be just that, delivering said system or create their own service, but their buying up content and trying to carve the pie to such a point that they truly can become too big
Comcast as an ISP provider that holds almost up to 50% catalog of content is a fucking scary thought
The biggest problem is that M&A mania isn't even our biggest problem.
Thanks to telcos that are simply refusing to upgrade aging DSL lines at any real scale, Comcast has been quietly cementing a growing monopoly over the country's broadband connections. According to FCC data, huge swaths of America see virtually no competition at faster speeds, with Comcast usually being a customer's only option.
This lack of broadband competition has repercussions that extend well beyond broadband. For example, privacy and net neutrality violations are just a symptom of this lack of competition. Without meaningful competition, consumers can't vote with their wallet and switch ISPs, meaning there's no organic market pressure for Comcast to behave.
When a market is clearly broken, usually regulators step in to try and embrace policies that foster real competition.
But here in the States, Comcast has been incredibly effective in the Trump era at quickly dismantling any meaningful regulatory oversight of the company. From gutting net neutrality and axing privacy rules, to attempts to weaken both FCC and FTC oversight of major telecom and media monopolies, there's a perfect storm of unaccountability on the horizon.
"The potential Comcast-Fox deal would be concerning during normal times, but is even more alarming in an era where the Trump administration and the pro-corporate members of Congress have placed Net Neutrality in jeopardy and are in the process of dismantling the few remaining policies that prevent local media monopolies," Turner notes.
Brian Roberts—the chairman and chief executive of the $142 billion Comcast cable TV, broadband, and multimedia empire, No. 31 on the Fortune 500 list—is improbably cast as a villain.
Yet by some accounts, albeit forcefully disputed by Comcast, he's perhaps the nation's most effective enemy of net neutrality—namely free, unfettered and equal access for all to content on the internet.
Cant Disney, like, just get F4 and Xmen back and let Comcast get Fox?
Disney I fear is getting too big.
Comcast is preparing to make its bid for Twenty-First Century Fox's assets in mid-June, sources tell CNBC.
This time, a bid would include protections such as a reverse termination fee, the sources told CNBC.
CNBC reported Monday that Comcast was preparing a $60 billion all-cash bid that would top Walt Disney's deal to acquire the studio and production assets of Fox if the government approves AT&T's acquisition of Time Warner.
Comcast could take on significant debt in a deal, sources told CNBC on Tuesday, up to $100 billion.
But the sources also said Comcast CEO Brian Roberts and Disney CEO Bob Iger aren't communicating about resolving this bidding battle.
Cant Disney, like, just get F4 and Xmen back and let Comcast get Fox?
Disney I fear is getting too big.
How nice of you to stick up for little guy Comcast. Mom and pop internet companies get shit on far too oftenCant Disney, like, just get F4 and Xmen back and let Comcast get Fox?
Disney I fear is getting too big.
I meant as entertainment companies go Disney is getting too big (theyre way bigger than NBC-Universal) but youre right, Comcast as a whole is bigger.How nice of you to stick up for little guy Comcast. Mom and pop internet companies get shit on far too often
Everyone pulling for Comcast must not have to deal with Comcast as their service provider
Cant Disney, like, just get F4 and Xmen back and let Comcast get Fox?
Disney I fear is getting too big.
This take is scalding hot. Wow.This thread is dripping with irony. When it was announced Disney had intentions of buying Fox, there were cheers. Now, there are sharp attacks. All from moving from one multi billion company to another.
Y'all are just obsessed with them superheroes, huh.
By market cap, Disney is bigger than Comcast.And Comcast, a company that is way bigger then Disney is okay?
And even as an entertainment company they own NBC/Universal already besides being just a telecommunications company.