Skydance to Buy Paramount Global

[Rusty Muck 4362]

3 hours ago, HanSolo said:

It’s easy to take a stand and not sell when no one wants what you’re peddling.

 

Not holding my breath that anything of actual value comes from the deal. Maybe there’s some value in the office equipment they can sell at a yard sale. Because there’s not a lot else to wring cash from.. 

Larry Ellison's trust fund kid is going to wind up as the Tony Khan of the media landscape. But that's what the Penske family media apparatus wants, so good luck with that.

[ABC 7 Denver 1651]

1 hour ago, DENDude said:

I wonder how this sky dance deal eventually affects CBS NEWS & CBS News & Stations?   That will be interesting to watch.

 

I suspect the company, regardless of what Skydance says, will be split. CBS and Paramount will go different directions.

[Rusty Muck 4362]

28 minutes ago, ABC 7 Denver said:

 

I suspect the company, regardless of what Skydance says, will be split. CBS and Paramount will go different directions.

CBS is unsalable because no buyers exist. So Larry Ellison's trust fund kid is stuck with it for the long term.

[ABC 7 Denver 1651]

15 minutes ago, Rusty Muck said:

CBS is unsalable because no buyers exist. So Larry Ellison's trust fund kid is stuck with it for the long term.

 

I didn't say that it would be sold Rusty Muck. I think RedBird Capital Partners and/or KKR will take over primary management. Remember, Skydances' controlling interest is David Ellison, but they have several minority partners that could easily assume control of various Paramount Global Assets, though not directly through a sale, but an exchange of cash/equity whereby they assume greater controlling assets for which Ellison has no strategic value. I wouldn't call that a sale, per se.

[Rusty Muck 4362]

8 minutes ago, ABC 7 Denver said:

 

I didn't say that it would be sold Rusty Muck. I think RedBird Capital Partners and/or KKR will take over primary management. Remember, Skydances' controlling interest is David Ellison, but they have several minority partners that could easily assume control of various Paramount Global Assets, though not directly through a sale, but an exchange of cash/equity whereby they assume greater controlling assets for which Ellison has no strategic value. I wouldn't call that a sale, per se.

It'd still be incredibly messy as content libraries span both Paramount and CBS. Good luck splitting those up (again) and finding out which company gets what.

 

KKR would only take CBS if they could find a buyer, and even they would know better than that. Then again, they fucked up royally selling Storer Broadcasting to junk bond denizen George Gillett 35 years ago.

 

Otherwise, Larry Ellison's trust fund kid is screwed.

[JTT 74]

The content was what I was referring to.  Apple, Google,  or Amazon could have offered amount that Redstone couldn't refuse for the TV & movie library the company owns.  Plus the sports programming that CBS has contracts with.

[Big Rollo Smokes 232]

If "Larry Ellison's Trust Fund Kid" has a name–and he does–he should be referred to by his name here. No need to describe him by a sophomoric moniker.

 

Just sayin'...

[Rusty Muck 4362]

51 minutes ago, Big Rollo Smokes said:

If "Larry Ellison's Trust Fund Kid" has a name–and he does–he should be referred to by his name here. No need to describe him by a sophomoric moniker.

 

Just sayin'...

The only one I can think of is Megan Ellison, and she has a vanity film studio (Annapurna) that I doubt has ever made a profit and probably wouldn't have existed otherwise.

 

What has Skydance realistically done besides buy Paramount?

[channel2 926]

Foot the bill for a bunch of their more expensive movies, produce Grace and Frankie...

[ABC 7 Denver 1651]

1 hour ago, Rusty Muck said:

The only one I can think of is Megan Ellison, and she has a vanity film studio (Annapurna) that I doubt has ever made a profit and probably wouldn't have existed otherwise.

 

What has Skydance realistically done besides buy Paramount?

 

Produce more sequels for Top Gun, Terminator, the Star Trek movie franchise (which would be wholly owned by Ellison now), G.I. Joe, etc.

 

Looking at the Skydance roster of Television series, I am wondering if David Ellison will shutter Paramount+ and pivot the Paramount content to other streamers with relevant relationships, especially Netflix, Prime and and Apple Studios, he'll relaunch Paramount+ as Skydance+ or he'll keep it as it is, which is having select content keyed for Paramount+ while using the Skydance brand to shop content to other streamers.

 

Given how saturated the streaming market is I also think dissolving Paramount+ and creating some sort of hubbed agreement, like Paramount+ on Netflix, a marketing arrangement of a store-in-store retail concept might be interesting.

[mer764KCTV5 126]

7 hours ago, Rusty Muck said:

KKR would only take CBS if they could find a buyer, and even they would know better than that. Then again, they fucked up royally selling Storer Broadcasting to junk bond denizen George Gillett 35 years ago.

 

Otherwise, Larry Ellison's trust fund kid is screwed.

I also want to mention that,

 

At least KTLA wasn't sold off to Gillett, and was instead sold off to Tribune Broadcasting.*

 

Not exactly the same time, but it was the better solution in the situation in how stupid they are. 

 

*Tribune Broadcasting aquired KTLA in 1985, the same year that Storer Communications was aquired by KKR (Which led to problems in some areas. One big example would include South Florida.) WHO then, sold off the Storer stations to Gillett around 1987-1988.

[HanSolo 65]

Whatever labels one wants to hang on someone or their offspring, that “name” tends to get more of the attention and commentary. They’re stuck, they have this, they can’t do that. All true enough. Sadly though, it’s the rank-and-file types who inevitably get shafted. People doing their best day in and day out to put a roof over their head and food on their table. 
 

Of course it’s true in every industry; an equal-opportunity casualty of the ugly side of the market. And by no means am I pretending those folks weren’t in for a tough go of it regardless. Just that somewhere in all the snark and mud-flinging at supposed corporate “villains” the real-world ramifications get lost. 

[MediaZone4K 1872]

13 hours ago, SDHIll1980 said:

 

Perhaps one thing I could agree with Mr. Muck is that all of the Paramount cable networks are all-rerun farms, outside of what you've mentioned.

 

As an example, because I watch plenty of classic reruns on days I work from home (if I'm not watching news or sports), Logo is all-day/evening marathons of either Bewitched, The Facts of Life, The Nanny, Mama's Family, Will & Grace, Three's Company, or Married...with Children; the few original programs they had in the past that are still running have since moved to either MTV or VH1 (particularly RuPaul's Drag Race).  BET Her is more or less another all-rerun channel, with repurposed content from linear BET or BET+, along with the annual simulcasts of their award shows.  BET's Jams, Hip-Hop, and Soul channels also play all-day music videos.  I don't watch any of the Nickelodeon channels or TV Land, and haven't in years.  Comedy Central, of course, still has some original content, but most of their broadcast days are all-day reruns of the same dozen or so shows, or the same couple dozen movies they currently have rights to. 

 

Honestly, with the success of Pluto TV, they've made the Paramount cable networks rather useless, but they're still sticking around just to get retransmission dollars from the various TV providers around.  Eventually, and who knows when, several of these networks will shutter and what original content they'll still offer can move to either Pluto or Paramount+ (or whatever becomes of that platform).

I agree that those channels have become useless rerun vats. Not to verge too off-topic, but what is the future of cable television? Non existance? 

[Newzgods 0]

Jeff Zucker can easily head up the CBS network. As for the CBS News and the CBS stations expect changes.

Wendy McMahon is easily gone. Zucker has a Rolodex of news leaders he can replace her with.

Also expect new leadership for the station group. McMahon has two presidents overseeing 12 local stations.

You also have some stations like WBBM in Chicago that are a ratings dumpster

 

 

[tyrannical bastard 3764]

2 hours ago, MediaZone4K said:

I agree that those channels have become useless rerun vats. Not to verge too off-topic, but what is the future of cable television? Non existance? 

Basically live news and sports.  CNN may have thrown the gauntlet first with putting a live feed of themselves on Max.  (which is basically the same as linear CNN).  This is likely because they've pushed themselves into irrelevance unlike the others.

Until Fox News and MSNBC do the same, cable tv has a lifeline.  ESPN may be helping to break the system once they go fully a-la-carte.

 

But yes, the Paramount channels are mostly rerun vats.  And basically added value for the clueless cable tv subscriber who wants their fix of shows readily available on streaming or on-demand.

[SDHIll1980 41]

4 hours ago, MediaZone4K said:

I agree that those channels have become useless rerun vats. Not to verge too off-topic, but what is the future of cable television? Non existance? 

 

Tyrannical Bastard answered the question very eloquently, but to expand on his point...let's say, for example, that the new sports streaming joint venture between Warner Bros. Discovery, Fox, and Disney becomes a success (and if it gets off the ground), if that doesn't put a nail in cable TV's coffin, it'll expedite the process much further. It also probably doesn't help that streamers such as Apple TV, Peacock, Prime Video, ESPN+ (with separate content from linear ESPN) and now Netflix are offering more and more live sports content, along with certain individual NBA and NHL teams now offering in-market telecasts via streaming and/or over-the-air TV without the use of a cable/satellite subscription.

 

Traditional TV providers are continuously losing subscribers left and right, either to the likes of YouTube TV, Sling, or Fubo, or going back to the old "rabbit ears", with the streaming platforms serving as a complement.  Not even the news channels are strong enough to keep cable alive IMO, especially when you have multiple streaming outlets to get live news from--from the Big Four themselves, their O&Os, their station partners, or independent outlets (including certain newspapers like the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times).  Also, we've seen in recent years that you no longer need the use of cable/satellite to watch the premium movie networks...if you're not a sports fan, or even a news buff, those alone can entice you to "cut the cord", and subscribe to whichever individual streamers that may have your favorite movies.  With the current setup, it's going to continue to make traditional cable TV even more useless outside of live sports and news.

 

[Rusty Muck 4362]

6 hours ago, MediaZone4K said:

I agree that those channels have become useless rerun vats. Not to verge too off-topic, but what is the future of cable television? Non existance? 

If not non-existence, it'll wind up as non-viable outside of poor, rural areas.

 

And that's what makes this purchase so foolish and stupid: Skydance is going to find out the hard way that they bought a company centered around cable channels that are hurtling to obsolescence and are stuck with them. But if Larry Ellison wants his Oracle fortune to be squandered like this, then who am I to judge.

[tyrannical bastard 3764]

Our favorite destroyer of networks (and possibly our democracy thanks to his former BFF) may be waiting in the wings for Skydance's leftovers....

https://www.ftvlive.com/sqsp-test/2024/7/8/skydance-to-buy-paramount

 

As Moe Syszlak once said, "Oh dear god, no!"

[mrschimpf 2233]

8 hours ago, SDHIll1980 said:

 

Tyrannical Bastard answered the question very eloquently, but to expand on his point...let's say, for example, that the new sports streaming joint venture between Warner Bros. Discovery, Fox, and Disney becomes a success (and if it gets off the ground), if that doesn't put a nail in cable TV's coffin, it'll expedite the process much further. It also probably doesn't help that streamers such as Apple TV, Peacock, Prime Video, ESPN+ (with separate content from linear ESPN) and now Netflix are offering more and more live sports content, along with certain individual NBA and NHL teams now offering in-market telecasts via streaming and/or over-the-air TV without the use of a cable/satellite subscription.

 

Traditional TV providers are continuously losing subscribers left and right, either to the likes of YouTube TV, Sling, or Fubo, or going back to the old "rabbit ears", with the streaming platforms serving as a complement.  Not even the news channels are strong enough to keep cable alive IMO, especially when you have multiple streaming outlets to get live news from--from the Big Four themselves, their O&Os, their station partners, or independent outlets (including certain newspapers like the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times).  Also, we've seen in recent years that you no longer need the use of cable/satellite to watch the premium movie networks...if you're not a sports fan, or even a news buff, those alone can entice you to "cut the cord", and subscribe to whichever individual streamers that may have your favorite movies.  With the current setup, it's going to continue to make traditional cable TV even more useless outside of live sports and news.

 

Already seeing it really with Spectrum and Comcast where unless it's the only way you can view it, they're done with cable boxes and going to IPTV streaming. InDemand, the PPV provider will be done by 2025 and it's doubtful their former partners retain the status quo on their own. With both providers they're giving out Xumos or Apple TV remotes and pushing folks towards the apps, and once they get DVR-like controls on their cloud DVR systems (Spectrum plans to launch end of year), that'll be it. Outside channel availability that's the only thing keeping me from moving on (still have TiVos and an HDHomerun), but if their FF/rewind works well I'll dump them. It's already slowly going away, and I don't think we'll be seeing things as is even by 2027.

[SDHIll1980 41]

2 hours ago, mrschimpf said:

Already seeing it really with Spectrum and Comcast where unless it's the only way you can view it, they're done with cable boxes and going to IPTV streaming. InDemand, the PPV provider will be done by 2025 and it's doubtful their former partners retain the status quo on their own. With both providers they're giving out Xumos or Apple TV remotes and pushing folks towards the apps, and once they get DVR-like controls on their cloud DVR systems (Spectrum plans to launch end of year), that'll be it. Outside channel availability that's the only thing keeping me from moving on (still have TiVos and an HDHomerun), but if their FF/rewind works well I'll dump them. It's already slowly going away, and I don't think we'll be seeing things as is even by 2027.

 

I'm a Spectrum subscriber, and use an Apple TV device to view their app.  I just absolutely refuse to pay for a set-top box, so whatever shows I view for later viewing is all on-demand.  I've been actually considering downgrading back to internet-only, especially with the latest price hike, and that ridiculous broadcast surcharge.  I keep an antenna for backup purposes, and I have no issues receiving all of my locals, at least the ones that matter to me.  My sister in Phoenix has Cox, and uses one of those boxes where it's just streaming apps, plus a few streaming channels, no locals or cable networks.

 

All said though, and it's something I thought about earlier, it wouldn't surprise me if Spectrum phases out live TV within the proceeding decade, or whenever their local sports contracts run out.

[Rusty Muck 4362]

5 hours ago, tyrannical bastard said:

Our favorite destroyer of networks (and possibly our democracy thanks to his former BFF) may be waiting in the wings for Skydance's leftovers....

https://www.ftvlive.com/sqsp-test/2024/7/8/skydance-to-buy-paramount

 

As Moe Syszlak once said, "Oh dear god, no!"

Skydance is run by an idiot who has lots of money thanks to his more successful dad. What more needs to be said.

22 hours ago, ABC 7 Denver said:

Produce more sequels for Top Gun, Terminator, the Star Trek movie franchise (which would be wholly owned by Ellison now), G.I. Joe, etc.

Partnering with Jeff Zucker on anything negates whatever else they've done.

[mre29 1437]

20 hours ago, mrschimpf said:

Already seeing it really with Spectrum and Comcast where unless it's the only way you can view it, they're done with cable boxes and going to IPTV streaming. InDemand, the PPV provider will be done by 2025 and it's doubtful their former partners retain the status quo on their own. With both providers they're giving out Xumos or Apple TV remotes and pushing folks towards the apps, and once they get DVR-like controls on their cloud DVR systems (Spectrum plans to launch end of year), that'll be it. Outside channel availability that's the only thing keeping me from moving on (still have TiVos and an HDHomerun), but if their FF/rewind works well I'll dump them. It's already slowly going away, and I don't think we'll be seeing things as is even by 2027.

As someone who recently moved to a Spectrum area, I can attest to their use of streaming apps instead of traditional cable boxes. Not having a traditional cable box was a bit weird at first, but the change actually worked out. What helped a lot is that the Xumo Streambox's remote has number keys.

 

I do miss having a DVR, though -- Xfinity has had a cloud DVR for a few years now, so hopefully they're lending Spectrum a hand in getting that going.

 

 

 

[MD TV 219]

Layoffs are coming:

 

https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/paramount-layoffs-15-percent-1236100607/

 

 

[JTT 74]

Wonder if the L.A. stations news department will be affected?

[ABC 7 Denver 1651]

On 7/9/2024 at 8:27 AM, tyrannical bastard said:

Basically live news and sports.  CNN may have thrown the gauntlet first with putting a live feed of themselves on Max.  (which is basically the same as linear CNN).  This is likely because they've pushed themselves into irrelevance unlike the others.

Until Fox News and MSNBC do the same, cable tv has a lifeline.  ESPN may be helping to break the system once they go fully a-la-carte.

 

But yes, the Paramount channels are mostly rerun vats.  And basically added value for the clueless cable tv subscriber who wants their fix of shows readily available on streaming or on-demand.

 

Fox News and MSNBC aren't news channels. They exhibit political punditry (opinion). They can brand themselves however they like, but just because they call themselves "news" doesn't mean they are news. Call a potato whatever you want, but it does not make it a banana.