Discussion in 'The Howard Stern Show' started by Gay Howard, Apr 28, 2012.
What was/is Howard trying to pull?
Do I have to say it.....? Actually , good point. It was funny when Howard switched merger around to acquired,,, not just acquired but (Howard's nasal drawn out) voice AAAACQQUUIIIRRRED.... That went on for a few months then suddenly stopped and Meeeerrrgeerrr was once again the "Hot Word"
The clause in his contract paid him $25 million for a merger not an AAAACQQUUIIIRRREMENTTT
Stern loves to change history. He crows about forcing the XM merger and therefore should be compensated but he fails to mention Sirius had negative cashflow before the merger so instead he rants about ipods competing and the unfair FCC.
Siri was bleeding money and had to merge but Stern can't say that because then the truth would reveal that his move to Satellite plunged SIRI farther into debt rather than bringing enough customers to make it the dominant sat. company. He was such a stupid asshole Wednesday with those rants.
So, Howard's lawyers told him to say the wrong thing
They also forgot to include that whole "partner" thing in his contract.
I remember when the whole mess was going on with Conan O'Brien and The Tonight Show when they were going to move Jay Leno's show to 11:35 p.m. and Conan's Tonight Show wouldn't start until after midnight - Howard had a field day saying that Conan should have had it specified in his contract that the Tonight Show always starts at 11:35. Howard bragged that everything is always spelled out in his contracts.
I can't wait for someone to invent a machine that lets you superimpose timelines. We could send back the last two years of shows to the time period when Howard was trying to bilk us into supporting the merger.
It wouldn't help us now, but I'd find some level of comfort knowing that Howard stern ruined is own career in another universe.
its not Howard spin or Howard "changing history".
after the leveraged buyout era big companies always refer to buyouts and acquisitions as "mergers". they believe the term "merger" is more positive than "bought" or "acquired" and calling it a "merger" will not cause the investor confidence to drop and the stock price of the company to crash.
there are enough things for you to be pissed off at Howard about if you want but this is grasping at straws, again.
"merger" and "acquisition" have specific and different legal definitions.
I'm not anally arguing legal definitions, but the corporate management intent because the lawyers do not decide to make the purchase or sale; the lawyers only handle the process. from a management viewpoint (which is the only viewpoint that matters), acquisition is considered negative for the company being bought out, thus event is listed as a merger which is considered more positive. in this instance the lawyers are essentially blue collar workers handling the paper to enact management's decision and values. the legal definitions simply do not matter in the decision.
Sirius isn't the only company to choose to list the event as a merger rather than an acquisition to spare the market reaction. It happens quite frequently among financial companies (and has over the last 15 years)
Well, first it was half-Jew, then it was full-Jew. Whatever suits Howard's needs at the moment.
After using the word merger exclusively, when the lawsuit was filed Howard suddenly started emphasizing that it was an ACQUISITION and NOT a merger. I'm guessing his lawyers told him (or he believed) it was beneficial to use that term, but it wasn't.