First a merger, then an acquisition, and now back to a merger.

Discussion in 'The Howard Stern Show' started by Gay Howard, Apr 28, 2012.

  1. Gay Howard

    Gay Howard New Member

    Reputations:
    -3
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why?

    What was/is Howard trying to pull?
     
  2. Ruffypup

    Ruffypup Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    162,480
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Messages:
    23,254
    Likes Received:
    3,484
    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"
     
  3. BethSucks

    BethSucks Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Reputations:
    423,446
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2012
    Messages:
    23,945
    Likes Received:
    46,446
    The clause in his contract paid him $25 million for a merger not an AAAACQQUUIIIRRREMENTTT
     
  4. BudBudha

    BudBudha Male Underwear Model

    Reputations:
    371
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2012
    Messages:
    8,287
    Likes Received:
    8
    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.
     
  5. Ruffypup

    Ruffypup Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    162,480
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Messages:
    23,254
    Likes Received:
    3,484
    So, Howard's lawyers told him to say the wrong thing
     
  6. BethSucks

    BethSucks Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Reputations:
    423,446
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2012
    Messages:
    23,945
    Likes Received:
    46,446
    They also forgot to include that whole "partner" thing in his contract. :facepalm:
     
  7. Thelma

    Thelma Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    41,590
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    7,058
    Likes Received:
    6,644
    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. :rolleye:
     
  8. Beth143nacho

    Beth143nacho Well-Known Member VIP

    Reputations:
    64,777
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2012
    Messages:
    19,891
    Likes Received:
    16,693
    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.
     
  9. newcastlefan

    newcastlefan גֵּרְשֹׁם VIP

    Reputations:
    136,128
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2011
    Messages:
    57,705
    Likes Received:
    17,026
    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.
     
  10. YokoOhNo

    YokoOhNo Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    1,691
    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2011
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    561
    "merger" and "acquisition" have specific and different legal definitions.
     
  11. newcastlefan

    newcastlefan גֵּרְשֹׁם VIP

    Reputations:
    136,128
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2011
    Messages:
    57,705
    Likes Received:
    17,026
    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)
     
  12. Popeye Saavedra

    Popeye Saavedra Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    80,644
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2012
    Messages:
    37,710
    Likes Received:
    2,138
    Well, first it was half-Jew, then it was full-Jew. Whatever suits Howard's needs at the moment.
     
  13. tv910

    tv910 Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    71,124
    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,618
    Likes Received:
    17,975
    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.