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

Mmoore29

Well-Known Member
21CF was a public company, Murdoch could not just tell Comcast to "get stuffed" as they had a fiduciary responsibility to get the most value for the company they can. If they just told Comcast to go away there would have been a shareholder lawsuit for not fulfilling their fiduciary duties, SEC takes that stuff very seriously.

Maker Studio was different as it was a private entity with only a handful of investors that had to be made whole.


The debt being discussed is the long term debt that was accrued during the 21CF acquisition as well as the pandemic bridge financing they took on. And while its going down slowly investors having been pushing to have it paid down faster hence the push to sell assets like ABC and other legacy linear assets.

As for whether Disney will or won't sell their US linear assets, as was discuss whether its the Allen deal or someone else Disney will eventually sell them. As legacy linear while you feel is a companion to streaming is a dying media and as such Disney will be getting out of that distribution model whether now or in the near future. Basically don't look for Disney to have those assets 5+ years from now, likely less.
When RJR Nabisco was going through the 1988 LBO, they chose Henry Kravis' final deal over Ross Johnson's, despite Johnson's offering a higher price. RJR Nabisco was public at the time, so a public company CAN choose a lower deal if it so chooses. In fact, the original Time Warner deal, before Paramount Communications bid for Time, made a lot more sense, as a merger of equals. Time easily could've told Paramount "We're not reopening the bidding, this deal with Warner makes sense. Get lost."

The overseas linear TV assets alone would achieve much of what you claim selling the US assets would. The Europe, Asia and India assets together can net $20 billion.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
When RJR Nabisco was going through the 1988 LBO, they chose Henry Kravis' final deal over Ross Johnson's, despite Johnson's offering a higher price. RJR Nabisco was public at the time, so a public company CAN choose a lower deal if it so chooses. In fact, the original Time Warner deal, before Paramount Communications bid for Time, made a lot more sense, as a merger of equals. Time easily could've told Paramount "We're not reopening the bidding, this deal with Warner makes sense. Get lost."

The overseas linear TV assets alone would achieve much of what you claim selling the US assets would. The Europe, Asia and India assets together can net $20 billion.
Just because a company "can" take a lower valued deal for a merger doesn't mean shareholder will approve, remember its up to the shareholder to approve the deals not just the CEO and Board. As it has to be voted on by the shareholders, if they feel the lower valued deal wasn't good enough it can lead to lawsuits.

Not sure where you get your valuation of the overseas assets, or any of Disney's assets for that matter. But its not up to us to decide or set valuations, its up to Iger and the Board. If they decide to sell the US assets over any overseas assets, as long as the valuations seem proper, there is nothing any of us can do about it.
 

Mmoore29

Well-Known Member
Just because a company "can" take a lower valued deal for a merger doesn't mean shareholder will approve, remember its up to the shareholder to approve the deals not just the CEO and Board. As it has to be voted on by the shareholders, if they feel the lower valued deal wasn't good enough it can lead to lawsuits.

Not sure where you get your valuation of the overseas assets, or any of Disney's assets for that matter. But its not up to us to decide or set valuations, its up to Iger and the Board. If they decide to sell the US assets over any overseas assets, as long as the valuations seem proper, there is nothing any of us can do about it.
Being fiscally responsible can open one up to lawsuits? I get suing over an overpayment. But suing over a fair market value? Over a financially responsible deal?
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
Being fiscally responsible can open one up to lawsuits? I get suing over an overpayment. But suing over a fair market value? Over a financially responsible deal?
In the US you can sue for almost anything, so yes shareholder lawsuits happen when CEOs/Boards don't act to the benefit of the shareholders.

Who is determining fair market value and what is financially responsible here? Fair market value is what x is willing to buy y for. So if company A puts in an offer to buy company B for x price and company C puts in a higher bid for company B at y price, then company C has to determine if the new y bid is fair and acceptable and if company A is willing to match or exceed that y bid. But if company B accepts the original lower offer from company A and its not to the liking of the shareholders of company B the leadership can get sued for failing on their fiduciary responsibility as they didn't get the most value for company B during the sale.

So the 21CF shareholders could have sued Murdoch had they not considered Comcast's offer and asked Disney to match/exceed it.
 

Mmoore29

Well-Known Member

Disney gets deal to add Star Wars to ABC, FX and Freeform; Disney gets Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction coverage on Disney+ and ABC; The Golden Bachelor getting great numbers...

No one who wants to just dump assets would add so aggressively to them beforehand...unless you're Ronald Perelman and moving to dump New World to News Corp., but that's an outlier.

Face it. ABC is here to stay under Disney's umbrella.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member

Disney gets deal to add Star Wars to ABC, FX and Freeform; Disney gets Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction coverage on Disney+ and ABC; The Golden Bachelor getting great numbers...

No one who wants to just dump assets would add so aggressively to them beforehand...unless you're Ronald Perelman and moving to dump New World to News Corp., but that's an outlier.

Face it. ABC is here to stay under Disney's umbrella.
Doesn't mean much, licensing rights (which is what is being talked about here) transfer upon sale of the asset. This is why new 20th Century Studios content was available on HBO Max for a long time after Disney bought 21CF, all those licensing deals that Fox setup before stayed in place until they expired.

None of this is proof that Disney is keeping ABC or any other linear asset long term. Disney can still sell off any part of ABC and those licensing rights for Star Wars follows to the new owner.
 

DCBaker

Premium Member
Interesting ABC news.

"Good Morning America is leaving its high-profile studio in New York’s Times Square to a new Walt Disney Co. building in Hudson Square.

Good Morning America is defined by the strength of our team in front of and behind the camera, quality of our reporting, and the long, trusted relationship with our viewers. Moving all ABC News teams to our new state-of-the-art building was a strategic decision that will allow for more collaboration and innovation,” an ABC News spokesperson said in a statement of the move, first reported in the New York Post.

The Hudson Square complex will be the new headquarters for Disney, and the move is planned for 2025."

Full article below

 

Robbiem

Well-Known Member
Does anyone know what the plan is for Times Square?

It sounds odd to build a new Disney/ABC building in New York if you’re going to see the network but then stranger things have happened before
 

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
Let's lay "selling ABC" to bed...

Speaking at The New York Times DealBook Summit, Iger said his interview last July with CNBC never was intended to affix a “for sale” sign to ABC, local stations and other linear networks. Media coverage of his comments, he maintained, conveyed a more extreme version of the company’s strategic plans than what he intended, which was a trial balloon aimed at Wall Street.​
“The business model that those linear channels rested on and have succeeded on top of for decades” has been one of the strategic challenges during the past year since he rejoined the company as CEO, Iger said.​
“Sometimes, when I am looking for a reaction to my own thought process, I like to test that process in public, particularly in ways that I might be able to get a reaction from the investment community,” he said. “So, my thought was at the time that I would essentially be public with that thought process.”​
Floating the scenario “was a means of my saying to Wall Street or the investment community that our heads were not in the sand about the challenges those businesses were having,” Iger said. “I did not want to get accused of being kind of an old media executive. Our company had already shown the ability to basically adapt to new circumstances. So, 1) I wanted to convey that and 2) see what the reaction would be. .. I did not say they were for sale. The coverage of what I said said they were for sale.”​
The portfolio of linear assets are “not for sale,” Iger said. “Like all of our assets, we are constantly evaluating what is their value to the company today? What could their value be tomorrow? Is it a growth business?”​
Moderator Andrew Ross Sorkin asked the Disney chief whether he still thinks linear TV is a good business. Iger said an internal evaluation of linear “has been unbelievably rigorous at the company and involves a number of executives who are managing those businesses We’ve determined a few things — 1) that they can be run more efficiently, with some difficult choices. … Second, they can be run in partnership with [streaming]. .. They’re a means of aggregating audience and amortizing costs, of basically reaching more and different people. .. Through this process of being more public about what might happen or what could happen and really rolling up sleeves to see, is this something we should do? Should they be divested? Should they be kept? If they are kept, how should they be run? They’re being run more efficiently today than in July, when I made those comments.”​

 
They didn't see the level of interest they were hoping for IMO. Probably most prospective buyers wanted both the over-the-air infra as well as a bunch of content that Disney wasn't interested in selling.

But I'm guessing the sale of ABC is still on the table if the right buyer comes along, because increasingly the network itself has no minimal in the age of streaming.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom