Skip to main content

Just collateral damage. 

 

So lets recap, Clear Channel is losing a large slice of advertising revenue for a broadcaster they are paying $38 million a year. The company has a market cap of $5.5 billion, and $19 billion in debt. Despite a junk bond rating, the company is planning to borrow another $2.2 billion to pay a $2 billion dividend to Bain Capital. That will leave the company with a market cap of $3.3 billion, and $21.2 billion in debt with $4 billion due in 2014 and another $12 billion up to 2016.

And don't forget that in the increasingly likely case that these Vampire Capital tactics put Clear Channel into bankruptcy, Chapter 11 will allow the same management team who engineered it to stay in control and later find a new clutch of investors to bilk.

So the answer to my question in the subject line turns out to be "no": Mitt Romney's Bain capital looks like it was doing a fine job of destroying Clear Channel all on its own. But Limbaugh's bigotry and the advertiser boycott he brought on himself might well turn out to be the final straw.

 

http://www.americablog.com/201...n-clear-channel.html

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by Chuck Farley:

I'm glad you are concerned about Clear Channel debt It's too bad you aren't concerned about 3.5 Billion in U.S. debt that accrues every day or the record 1.5 Trillion dollar budget deficit  Hey if your curious as to where you social security money is it's on a little piece of paper that says IOU.


Reagan proved that deficits dont matter.

He tripled the national debt and is considered a God among the Repubics.  If OBama can leave office with a national debt of $30trillion, he will only equal the performance of Reagan. 

 

Clear Channel is done.  The strategery for borrowing money to pay dividends is a classic Bain Capital tactic to make sure they get their profit before the company declares bankruptcy. 

Reagan increased the debt by 2 trillion dollars by cutting taxes.  Obama has increased debt by 8 trillion dollars with crony capitalism and kickbacks to donors.  More debt than all prior presidents combined.  You can play around with words and make that sound good but wipe your shoes off before you go in the house.  The debt was 6.4 trillion dollars on inauguration day.  It will top 15 trillion by the end of his first term. 

Originally Posted by Chuck Farley:

Reagan increased the debt by 2 trillion dollars by cutting taxes.  Obama has increased debt by 8 trillion dollars with crony capitalism and kickbacks to donors.  More debt than all prior presidents combined.  You can play around with words and make that sound good but wipe your shoes off before you go in the house.  The debt was 6.4 trillion dollars on inauguration day.  It will top 15 trillion by the end of his first term. 


Wrong.

Another idiot has entered the fray.

First, you're not allowed to say that "Reagan increased the debt by 2 trillion dollars by cutting taxes."

Tax cuts are said by Repubics to increase fed revenues and thereby decrease debt.  You must be new in town. 

 

And, BushIIe left the White House with about $10.6trillion in debt, only managing to double the national debt during his term, hence the general disregard for him among the Repubics. 

So far, OBama has only increased the debt by about 50%, to about $15trillion.

Excuse poor Ditzy, he knows how to manipulate data, but not how to interpret it. Ignores the 

$464 billion in interest the government paid last year.  Soon interest will be the largest portion of the budget.

 

He doesn't know how to read a business's income statement and balance sheet, either.  Else, he wouldn't make such statements about Clear Channel.

Originally Posted by interventor1212:

Excuse poor Ditzy, he knows how to manipulate data, but not how to interpret it. Ignores the 

$464 billion in interest the government paid last year.  Soon interest will be the largest portion of the budget.

 

He doesn't know how to read a business's income statement and balance sheet, either.  Else, he wouldn't make such statements about Clear Channel.


Ignore how?

OBama has increased the national debt by $5trillion by merely continuing the basic budget left behind by BushIIe.  BushIIes last budget had a deficit of $1.4trillion and deficits of over $1trillion will continue until the economy is back to 2006 levels, which will happen in about 2015. 

And, I didnt make any statement of Clear Channels impending failure, that was from real business analysts. 

Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:
Originally Posted by interventor1212:

Excuse poor Ditzy, he knows how to manipulate data, but not how to interpret it. Ignores the 

$464 billion in interest the government paid last year.  Soon interest will be the largest portion of the budget.

 

He doesn't know how to read a business's income statement and balance sheet, either.  Else, he wouldn't make such statements about Clear Channel.


Ignore how?

OBama has increased the national debt by $5trillion by merely continuing the basic budget left behind by BushIIe.  BushIIes last budget had a deficit of $1.4trillion and deficits of over $1trillion will continue until the economy is back to 2006 levels, which will happen in about 2015. 

And, I didnt make any statement of Clear Channels impending failure, that was from real business analysts. 

If congress had adopted Obama's last two budgets (neither were), the deficit would be much worse. The last two appropriation bills are bad enough. But, neither, reflect a continuation of past budgets.


 

Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:

Just collateral damage. 

 

So lets recap, Clear Channel is losing a large slice of advertising revenue for a broadcaster they are paying $38 million a year. The company has a market cap of $5.5 billion, and $19 billion in debt. Despite a junk bond rating, the company is planning to borrow another $2.2 billion to pay a $2 billion dividend to Bain Capital. That will leave the company with a market cap of $3.3 billion, and $21.2 billion in debt with $4 billion due in 2014 and another $12 billion up to 2016.

And don't forget that in the increasingly likely case that these Vampire Capital tactics put Clear Channel into bankruptcy, Chapter 11 will allow the same management team who engineered it to stay in control and later find a new clutch of investors to bilk.

So the answer to my question in the subject line turns out to be "no": Mitt Romney's Bain capital looks like it was doing a fine job of destroying Clear Channel all on its own. But Limbaugh's bigotry and the advertiser boycott he brought on himself might well turn out to be the final straw.

 

http://www.americablog.com/201...n-clear-channel.html

Geeze just let it go you fn ditz we have heard enough about C C and Rush Limbaugh, get over it. It may not be nice but it makes a point unlike anything you have said on any post

As to CC's income, their national advertisers did drop, but are recovering. The local stations are reporting advertisers coming back, as well. National advertising is but one income source for CC. For another, look up the word franchise.

 

Contendah claims CC has too much power and control the broadcast industry -- not true, of course, as they only are a franchiser for radio.  Contendah is quite willing to close down a rather small portion of a private company that extends the first amendment, because he doesn't like what they broadcast.

 

The federal government had much more power over citizens and may enforce it with threats of violence and imprisonment. CC is strictly voluntary.  I woud submit, while necessary, severe pruning of the federal government would decrease the threat to freedom more than ending CC's broadcasts.

Originally Posted by interventor1212:

As to CC's income, their national advertisers did drop, but are recovering. The local stations are reporting advertisers coming back, as well. National advertising is but one income source for CC. For another, look up the word franchise.

 

Contendah claims CC has too much power and control the broadcast industry -- not true, of course, as they only are a franchiser for radio.  Contendah is quite willing to close down a rather small portion of a private company that extends the first amendment, because he doesn't like what they broadcast.

 

The federal government had much more power over citizens and may enforce it with threats of violence and imprisonment. CC is strictly voluntary.  I woud submit, while necessary, severe pruning of the federal government would decrease the threat to freedom more than ending CC's broadcasts.

___

You need to do some research concerning the requirements CC places on its franchisees.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×