Disney's Potential Sale of ABC Television Network???

[Mmoore29]

I believe ABC has several loss leaders like that. I can't imagine the lavishly funded ABC News division is making them any money, and is instead fueled by ego and memories of decades-past when tens of millions of people tuned in to Peter Jennings nightly.

Those days are long gone, and are never coming back.

ABC News has not been "lavishly funded" in decades. They've cut things so far down, it's not to the bone, it's to the marrow. The actual operations are on shoestring budgets.

 

[Mmoore29]

That is a textbook non-denial denial. Not that it means they're definitely going to sell it, but I know which way I'd bet.

Or it's literally true and it's never going to happen.

 

[TP2000]

Disney is never going to sell ABC. Especially not for a cheap price as "$10 billion for all the linear TV assets, including the network."

Eisner bought it for $19 billion. Eisner considers it his proudest moment. Eisner would storm into Burbank and raise hell if ABC were going, especially for far less then he paid for it. You can tell Eisner would move heaven and earth to stop it from happening, ironically acting like Roy and Stan Gold did against him.

Disney needs ABC and ABC needs Disney. Simple as that.

Well, I guess that settles that.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Disney is never going to sell ABC. Especially not for a cheap price as "$10 billion for all the linear TV assets, including the network."

Eisner bought it for $19 billion. Eisner considers it his proudest moment. Eisner would storm into Burbank and raise hell if ABC were going, especially for far less then he paid for it. You can tell Eisner would move heaven and earth to stop it from happening, ironically acting like Roy and Stan Gold did against him.

Disney needs ABC and ABC needs Disney. Simple as that.

 

[Mmoore29]

View attachment 743114

Blame Murdoch for not sending Comcast packing. He could've told them they wouldn't consider their offer, so that Disney didn't have to raise the price tag.

Pixar was done at fair value. Marvel was done at fair value. Lucasfilm was done at fair value. No overpaying there.

 

[flynnibus]

Eisner bought it for $19 billion. Eisner considers it his proudest moment. Eisner would storm into Burbank and raise hell if ABC were going, especially for far less then he paid for it

27 years ago... the world changes and so should smart companies.

 

[Mmoore29]

27 years ago... the world changes and so should smart companies.

There are no viable alternatives for ABC outside of Disney's orbit, especially if they sell it for less than Eisner bought it.

That's amputating your arm just to get rid of a hangnail.

If Disney went back to its 1995 self, it would sacrifice so many complementary assets just for one-time cash flow. It's self-destructive. Disney needs all of these assets together, because the other companies aren't going to scale down. Disney will get walloped by the other studios if it doesn't have the scale to compete.

 

[Joel]

Eisner would storm into Burbank and raise hell if ABC were going, especially for far less then he paid for it.

This is fan fiction.

 

[Disney Irish]

Disney is never going to sell ABC. Especially not for a cheap price as "$10 billion for all the linear TV assets, including the network."

Eisner bought it for $19 billion. Eisner considers it his proudest moment. Eisner would storm into Burbank and raise hell if ABC were going, especially for far less then he paid for it. You can tell Eisner would move heaven and earth to stop it from happening, ironically acting like Roy and Stan Gold did against him.

Disney needs ABC and ABC needs Disney. Simple as that.

Eisner wouldn't be allowed in the door let alone have any say in current Disney operations. You're fooling yourself if you think Eisner is going to ride in as some savior.

Also Disney selling ABC doesn't include any of the studios, which is where all its value comes from. The $10B for just the channels and related assets is actually a good price.

 

[Disney Irish]

There are no viable alternatives for ABC outside of Disney's orbit, especially if they sell it for less than Eisner bought it.

That's amputating your arm just to get rid of a hangnail.

If Disney went back to its 1995 self, it would sacrifice so many complementary assets just for one-time cash flow. It's self-destructive. Disney needs all of these assets together, because the other companies aren't going to scale down. Disney will get walloped by the other studios if it doesn't have the scale to compete.

ABC can be run by an independent organization and still license the same content from Disney. It would still be the same as it is now just without Disney having to outlay large operation expenses toward a dying linear network.

 

[Mmoore29]

Eisner wouldn't be allowed in the door let alone have any say in current Disney operations. You're fooling yourself if you think Eisner is going to ride in as some savior.

Also Disney selling ABC doesn't include any of the studios, which is where all its value comes from. The $10B for just the channels and related assets is actually a good price.

Remember when Eisner tried to stop the Pixar acquisition? They let him in to have his say. He'd easily be allowed to do that now, and he'd basically say "I'm not letting you undo this deal."

ABC has incredible value, all of the assets do, and it was a necessary addition to Disney's arsenal. You can't remove something like that without making the structure collapse. It's all too tightly interwoven.

 

[Mmoore29]

ABC can be run by an independent organization and still license the same content from Disney. It would still be the same as it is now just without Disney having to outlay large operation expenses toward a dying linear network.

There are no viable buyers for ABC, in terms of there being a buyer who A) Can afford it, B) doesn't run afoul of antitrust, and C) would actually be able to help it grow.

Anyone who got it from Disney would strip it for parts. Disney protects ABC from that fate. Plus it's a great source of cash flow as well as synergy. Disney needs ABC and ABC needs Disney. It's been that way since 1996, and it'll always be that way.

 

[Disney Irish]

Remember when Eisner tried to stop the Pixar acquisition? They let him in to have his say. He'd easily be allowed to do that now, and he'd basically say "I'm not letting you undo this deal."

ABC has incredible value, all of the assets do, and it was a necessary addition to Disney's arsenal. You can't remove something like that without making the structure collapse. It's all too tightly interwoven.

Eisner had sway back then because he was Disney's largest shareholder at the time. That is no longer the case today. He has no power or sway over anything today.

Disney is also a different company than when it first acquired CapitalCities/ABC, and even different than when it acquired Pixar.

Companies spinoff divisions and separate assets all the time, and they don't collapse. For example Lionsgate in the middle of doing this very thing right now with Starz where its being spun-off to its own entity.

 

[Disney Irish]

There are no viable buyers for ABC, in terms of there being a buyer who A) Can afford it, B) doesn't run afoul of antitrust, and C) would actually be able to help it grow.

Anyone who got it from Disney would strip it for parts. Disney protects ABC from that fate. Plus it's a great source of cash flow as well as synergy. Disney needs ABC and ABC needs Disney. It's been that way since 1996, and it'll always be that way.

Obviously based on news reports today there are at least two buyers, Nexstar and Allen Media. So yes there are buyers who can afford it.

As for antitrust, I don't see much conflict that would cause any antitrust concerns with either buyer if it were to happen. And if there were concerns concessions can happen to make the deal still viable.

And on the "help it grow" front, that is not of concern here. Linear broadcasting is a dying medium, so growth is limited no matter who buys it.

Now of course all of this is said assuming that Disney is actually going to sell ABC. That remains to be seen if that is indeed going to happen. The point though is that Disney can sell it if they find a suitor, ie nothing is stopping them from selling ABC, and it appears there are at least two suitors.

Nice to be the belle of the ball with multiple suitors after you.....

 

[Mmoore29]

Eisner had sway back then because he was Disney's largest shareholder at the time. That is no longer the case today. He has no power or sway over anything today.

Disney is also a different company than when it first acquired CapitalCities/ABC, and even different than when it acquired Pixar.

Companies spinoff divisions and separate assets all the time, and they don't collapse. For example Lionsgate in the middle of doing this very thing right now with Starz where its being spun-off to its own entity.

You really think Eisner would just sit back and do NOTHING AT ALL? He may be in a different place than he was in 2006, but you can rest assured he would be furious at the idea of selling ABC. He'd find someone to take the matter on his behalf.

Yes, Disney is a different company. It's a different company BECAUSE of buying ABC. Disney would not be where it is today if ABC had never been bought. It was a necessary stepping stone to get there. And because of that, all of these impressive complementary assets are here.

Lionsgate and Starz is not comparable to Disney and its assets, in large part because Disney is on a different scale than Lionsgate. Disney, again, would be completely at a disadvantage doing that. You don't settle for LESS arrows in the quiver in the battles to come.

 

[Mmoore29]

Obviously based on news reports today there are at least two buyers, Nexstar and Allen Media. So yes there are buyers who can afford it.

As for antitrust, I don't see much conflict that would cause any antitrust concerns with either buyer if it were to happen. And if there were concerns concessions can happen to make the deal still viable.

And on the "help it grow" front, that is not of concern here. Linear broadcasting is a dying medium, so growth is limited no matter who buys it.

Now of course all of this is said assuming that Disney is actually going to sell ABC. That remains to be seen if that is indeed going to happen. The point though is that Disney can sell it if they find a suitor, ie nothing is stopping them from selling ABC, and it appears there are at least two suitors.

Nice to be the belle of the ball with multiple suitors after you.....

No buyer who can afford what ABC is REALLY worth. Nexstar and Allen Media would be buying it at a ludicrous discount. ABC is worthy of at least $30 billion alone for a deal, and these companies want to steal it for pennies. (By the way, to some extent, isn't economics not that much different than astrology? Saying P/E ratios and fair values and "what the market is really worth" in saying Disney's stock price was overvalued is equally as valid as my sayings Disney is a $250 stock. You can use this concept of something that is more an art than a science, as economics is, to reach two wildly different conclusions, both equally valid and solid in sourcing and data points. If anything, it just proves that "no one knows anything.")

Antitrust is more a concern for the truly big buyers, the Comcasts and the like, the only such buyers who could get the network at a fair value.

Linear broadcasting is definitely not growing, but it's far from dying, even though the takeaway has always been "dying." If anything, linear broadcasting and streaming can not only coexist, but help each other. The world is really a case of a rising tide lifting all boats in this instance. You can't shun one for the other, in either direction, because it means throwing away perfectly good money. And Disney, while certainly focusing on streaming, is not going to neglect linear TV at all, because they know there is still great value there.

 

[Disney Irish]

You really think Eisner would just sit back and do NOTHING AT ALL? He may be in a different place than he was in 2006, but you can rest assured he would be furious at the idea of selling ABC. He'd find someone to take the matter on his behalf.

Yes I think Eisner would sit back and do nothing, other than answer some media questions about the past. The man is 81 and has been retired and out of the game for over 15 years. Let him stay retired, he is not the savior you think he is.

Yes, Disney is a different company. It's a different company BECAUSE of buying ABC. Disney would not be where it is today if ABC had never been bought. It was a necessary stepping stone to get there. And because of that, all of these impressive complementary assets are here.

You're confusing history with future needs.

Disney no longer needs the ABC network anymore. Again that is what we are talking about, just the broadcast networks and associated assets. The rest of ABC operations like the Studios would be staying. And despite your claims otherwise they can be separated.

Lionsgate and Starz is not comparable to Disney and its assets, in large part because Disney is on a different scale than Lionsgate. Disney, again, would be completely at a disadvantage doing that. You don't settle for LESS arrows in the quiver in the battles to come.

Size doesn't matter here. It is comparable as it shows how a studio is divesting itself from a linear TV channel. You're likely to see more of it in the coming years as linear continues to die a slow painful death.

 

[Disney Irish]

No buyer who can afford what ABC is REALLY worth. Nexstar and Allen Media would be buying it at a ludicrous discount. ABC is worthy of at least $30 billion alone for a deal, and these companies want to steal it for pennies. (By the way, to some extent, isn't economics not that much different than astrology? Saying P/E ratios and fair values and "what the market is really worth" in saying Disney's stock price was overvalued is equally as valid as my sayings Disney is a $250 stock. You can use this concept of something that is more an art than a science, as economics is, to reach two wildly different conclusions, both equally valid and solid in sourcing and data points. If anything, it just proves that "no one knows anything.")

Antitrust is more a concern for the truly big buyers, the Comcasts and the like, the only such buyers who could get the network at a fair value.

Linear broadcasting is definitely not growing, but it's far from dying, even though the takeaway has always been "dying." If anything, linear broadcasting and streaming can not only coexist, but help each other. The world is really a case of a rising tide lifting all boats in this instance. You can't shun one for the other, in either direction, because it means throwing away perfectly good money. And Disney, while certainly focusing on streaming, is not going to neglect linear TV at all, because they know there is still great value there.

You're basing your valuation of the whole of CapitalCities/ABC when it was purchased in 1996. In this case only parts of ABC would be sold, not the entire thing, as such it would be a lower price then the whole of the previous acquisition. So your whole valuation of ABC is off here.

Also last I checked its Disney's asset, they set the price. So if they think the assets being sold are worth $10B and there is a buyer than that is how much its sold for.

And so at the price point that it appears the network would be going for there are several buyers, and not really any regulatory concerns. And if there are there are concessions to be made.

A lot of your "analysis" here is completely opposite of Disney's public statements.

 

[Mmoore29]

Size doesn't matter here. It is comparable as it shows how a studio is divesting itself from a linear TV channel. You're likely to see more of it in the coming years as linear continues to die a slow painful death.

WBD, Paramount and Universal aren't gonna scale down that much. If Disney did, the competitors would remain largely as big as they are now and use their power to crush Disney under their treads. This isn't the AOL Time Warner days, this is a set of assets that work well in tandem and lose juice if they are separated.

 

[Mmoore29]

You're basing your valuation of the whole of CapitalCities/ABC when it was purchased in 1996. In this case only parts of ABC would be sold, not the entire thing, as such it would be a lower price then the whole of the previous acquisition. So your whole valuation of ABC is off here.

Also last I checked its Disney's asset, they set the price. So if they think the assets being sold are worth $10B and there is a buyer than that is how much its sold for.

And so at the price point that it appears the network would be going for there are several buyers, and not really any regulatory concerns. And if there are there are concessions to be made.

A lot of your "analysis" here is completely opposite of Disney's public statements.

How can you sell ABC but still have ABC Signature? It doesn't work that way. Disney would HAVE to sell all of it. So yes, if Disney still wants the TV studios, they need the network. And there's value in it yet.

And in any respect, all of this media speculation is absurd. Iger NEVER SAID "ABC" when he talked about "assets that may not be core to Disney." Everyone just assumed he meant "ABC", but he never said "ABC."