Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Comcast is going to spin off many of their networks.
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 19:45:17 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <vhqn0d$1aha8$1@dont-email.me>
References: <veoqjj1esnppc21acab3iihj3umpp7nd4r@4ax.com> <vhp7i6$12gu3$1@dont-email.me> <vhq79n$17d85$3@dont-email.me> <jcb1kj1ljr09emos3fje2pbq8df10jc66h@4ax.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 20:45:17 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e027f71d13c2ec9345350f529fc3ddad";
	logging-data="1393992"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+SySGO1PQckyZmgfBq98VjZjruQjJmV+M="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rrCLoklVppoBXj9rYBh9OFKh6jw=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Bytes: 3066

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>Fri, 22 Nov 2024 15:17:11 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>On 11/21/2024 8:39 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>>>>>>. . .

>>>>>Yet, I was reading an article about the move last night and the
>>>>>writers (some financial analysts) believe the real money is coming
>>>>>from CNBC and MSNBC. I don't have the data to say one way or the other
>>>>>but they believed that freeing those two channels from NBC/Comcast
>>>>>will stop people from taking money from them to feed to pet projects.
>>>>>(Sounds a lot like what I keep hearing about Hollywood and how the
>>>>>money making projects end up funding everything else.)

>>>>Of course, any business in a large conglomerate would benefit from not
>>>>having its revenues diverted to something else, and to be able to sink
>>>>cash back into growing its own business.

>>>One assumes you meant to type "able to sink cash into stock buy-backs".  :P

>>I know you are joking, but no, whether significant amounts of stock are
>>repurchased or the company is taken private is a different calculation.

>>shawn is saying that executives running profitable groups were being
>>fucked over because they weren't allowed to reinvest their own profits
>>into growing the businesses they were running well.

>>I'll guess that most of the pet projects were unprofitable and found no
>>large audiences.

>Yes, that was my point. It's why I brought up the typical report about
>the Hollywood studios and how no movie ever seems to make money
>because they count any 'profits' against other projects.

You want their mistresses to pay their own living expenses and not charged
off as company business expenses?

>In this case
>the article says that CNBC and MSNBC were making money but much of
>their profits were being siphoned off for other pet projects that
>weren't part of CNBC/MSNBC. So even if the projects had been
>profitable that wouldn't benefit CNBC/MSNBC.