Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Communications

Time Warner Turns Down Takeover Bid From Rupert Murdoch 70

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the even-worse-than-comcast dept.
Dave Knott (2917251) writes The media giant 21st Century Fox, the empire run by Rupert Murdoch, made an $80 billion takeover bid in recent weeks for Time Warner Inc. but was rebuffed. Time Warner on Wednesday confirmed that it had rejected a cash and stock offer from 21st Century Fox, saying that it was not in the company's best interests. Time Warner's board discussed the proposal at length and early this month it sent a terse letter rejecting the offer, saying the company was better off remaining independent. A Time Warner statement pointed to its own strategic plan, what it said was "uncertainty" over the value of 21st Century Fox stock and regulatory risks as among the reasons for its rebuff. The company said that 21st Century Fox had offered a premium of roughly 22 percent to Time Warner's closing price on Tuesday. Shares of Time Warner were up about 20 percent in premarket trading on Wednesday morning. The combined company would have total revenue of $65 billion.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Time Warner Turns Down Takeover Bid From Rupert Murdoch

Comments Filter:
  • by mrspoonsi (2955715) on Wednesday July 16, 2014 @11:31AM (#47467045)
    The more these big media / film studios merge, the less choice there will be.
  • I thought the idea was that Comcast was merging with Time Warner in order to strengthen their cable monopoly. Is Time Warner's ISP a different business than Time Warner's content company or something?

    • by Trepidity (597) <delirium-slashdot@@@hackish...org> on Wednesday July 16, 2014 @11:41AM (#47467147)

      Is Time Warner's ISP a different business than Time Warner's content company or something?

      Yeah, Time Warner spun off Time Warner Cable in 2009 as a separate company.

    • by DarkFencer (260473) on Wednesday July 16, 2014 @11:41AM (#47467157)

      Yes, Time Warner, Inc (what this story is referring to) is a different company from Time Warner Cable (which Comcast is looking to acquire).

      Its also different from TW Telecom (formerly Time Warner Telecom, which is being acquired by Level 3.

      Its a complicated mess of mergers and spinoffs...

      • by Stephenmg (265369)
        They really should have gotten a little bit more creative when naming the new companies.
        • by aitikin (909209)
          You mean like Bell South and Southwest Bell and Bell Atlantic, etc?
        • by Trepidity (597)

          There's a whole slew of ex-TW companies that kept various parts of the name. It's kind of a mess, possibly deliberately.

          As another example: the entertainment production company, Warner Bros., which produced both films and music, was acquired by Time Warner. Fast-forward some decades, and there are now two companies named Warner, one of which is part of TW and one of which isn't. The film part is still known as Warner Bros and is still owned by Time Warner. The music part, formerly known as Warner Bros Music

          • by steelfood (895457)

            You're mostly right, except that Warner Communications which owned both Warner Bros. Studio and Warner Music (Warner Bros. Records at the time) merged with Time Inc. to form Time Warner. They weren't bought; they're the "Warner" half of Time Warner, with Time Inc. being the other half.

            But yeah, there were a ton of spin-offs and sales all through the 90's and 2000's.

          • by baegucb (18706)

            Back in the mid-80s, Fox bought a software system from Warner Brothers. (I was there at the time at Fox, and there was an intern from a Warner exec who was a pain...liked tagging stuff) Murdoch was considered an idiot by Fox employees. He ran out of gas on a holiday in LA, called up the studio, and had the only security guard on duty come out to help out. Oh yeah, there was a Die Hard movie filmed at a skyscraper in Century City owned by Fox. They didn't want to add enough any inches for a raised floor comp

    • by Anonymous Coward

      And isn't it curious that a former CEO of Time Warner is on the board of directors at Comcast.

      http://corporate.comcast.com/news-information/leadership-overview/joseph-j-collins

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Yeah it's a little hard to keep up with now but since i bought stock before all this madness I'm way to aware!

      TW split into TWC TWX and AOL, then recently they've split of TIME the magazine portion.

  • To turn down a $80 billion dollar deal...that's the price Time Warner is willing to pay to keep their successful business successful. South Park sold out to Hulu for only a fraction of the price, $80 million! $80 billion, nah, we're better off independent.
  • All I can say is that if we actually had decent anti-trust enforcement (YAGTDRR - Yet Another Good Thing Destroyed by Ronald Reagan), these mergers wouldn't even be an issue to begin with. Since they are, thank God this one seems not be going forward.

    • What about the opposite idea? If your company has over 70% monopoly in a specific sector for over five years, it has to be split into two new companies and must compete with each other.

      • You propose to trigger a breakup once a firm maintains a supermajority market share in a sector. Now define a "sector". Would you, say, break up Tesla for making 70% of desirable 4-wheel electric passenger vehicles when nobody else is attempting to sell anything but purposely bad compliance cars [slashdot.org]? (In fact, after seeing other automakers' failure to deliver a solid EV, Tesla decided it doesn't even want a monopoly and announced availability of its patents for licensing [slashdot.org].) Would you break up the NFL for having
        • I was merely saying that the issue is extremely complex on each extreme ends of the problem.

          I guess we could add "but only if competition exists" but then we'd have to define competition. Just trying to define a law can be an endless process because you need to try and catch all possibilities and define everything in details.

  • by Mycroft-X (11435) on Wednesday July 16, 2014 @11:58AM (#47467323)

    3...2...1....

  • ....shudder....

    .
    • If Fox were to get DC, does that mean the X-Men would finally get to cross over with the rest of Marvel once Fox rewrites the next X-Men film script for DC's Doom Patrol?
      • by RevWaldo (1186281)
        Nay-nay! Marvel is owned by Disney. Keep your megacorps straight, dammit!

        .
        • by tepples (727027)

          But if Fox bought the rights to the Doom Patrol, it wouldn't have to pay continuing royalties to Marvel to keep the X-Men film rights. Instead, it could let the rights revert to Marvel and just make Doom Patrol movies.* And if Marvel got the X-Men rights back, the Avengers would then be free to cross over with everything but Peter "Irving Spiderman" Parker, whose film rights Sony owns.

          * Notwithstanding nuisance trademark lawsuits from Zenimax, which owns Doom and Id Software's catalog. If it has shown it

  • Remember when America Online bought TimeWarner? That actually happened. Almost as crazy as being bought by the parent company of DC Comics.
  • Its not often that Time Warner looks good next to another corporation.

    After sharing headlines with AOL, Comcast, and now Rupert Murdoch they may have run out of worse alternatives...
  • Now I'll never see spider man in the avengers

  • Fox would have owned CNN.

    Of course, FoxNews owns CNN's ass already.
  • The subject line says it all.
    No. No. No.

  • I'm sure this thing was all just a secret Illuminati plot to put the X-Men and Fantastic 4 movie rights into the hands of DC Comics.

Some people have a great ambition: to build something that will last, at least until they've finished building it.

Working...