Starting fresh today all you dumbass twit socialists.
Looks like SIRI is sticking at $1.08 today and that's fine with me. I tried to pick some shares up at ~81 with a limit order two or three weeks ago, but it didn't fill - too greedy. Would be sitting on a ~25% gain right about now.
Hyperinflation - can it happen in America?
SPENCER OSBORNE
As I stated in my article, any contract can be renegotiated at any time provided that the interested parties are all in agreement that a renegotiation be conducted. The "merger of XM Radio holding and XM Radio has NOTHING to do with whether or not Baseball will come to the Sirius radio dial.
The MLB contract with XM pays baseball $60 million per year through 2012. MLB has the option to extend that contract at the $60 million per year terms for 2013, 2014, and 2015. XM has no say in this option. The option is MLB's alone.
At the end of 2012, MLB will either end the contract, or extend it. In my mind, they will extend it. The reason? Because they will not get $60 million per year for their content any more. Simply stated, who is going to pay $60 million for content that is more widely available now than it was when the original deal was struck!
At the time of the contract, MLB had worries that XM may not be able to pony up the money. This was a likely reason for the $120 million escrow account that was controlled by MLB. Should XM not be able to pay, the escrow would take care of two years of the contract. If MLB was astute enough to demand an escrow, one can imagine that they would have had thought about "change of control" as well.
Baseball has all of the cards. They can sit back and know that they hold a three year option. Thus, there is nothing Sirius XM can do about it but accept it. Unless they want to pony up the additional money that MLB is certainly seeking. Sirius XM wont do that, thus, a stale mate exists where MLB will get a pretty penny for content that is not worth as much as it used to be.
It only takes some REASONABLE thinking to see this clearly. REASONABLE PEOPLE ARRIVE AT REASONABLE CONCLUSIONS.
Originally Posted by SiriuslyLong
You must be young, I say that because you dont seem to recall the Carter years. Here let me take you down memory lane, Inflation was at 11%, unemployment was near 10%, and intrest rates were in the twenties (%), think about trying to buy a house back then.
Not too young, but not old enough to care about Carter and his policies (I was in HS). I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems you think it could happen. Carter was 25+ years ago. The world has changed. We now have this sickly relationship with China whereby they fund our national debt, and we consumers fund their manufacturing. Each is dependant on the other.
I have a good friend who started his wealth in the early 80's investing his cash in CD's. That's when he learned the benefits of saving. Now the guy very comfortable (a couple kids would certainly dent that!!).
What's with SIRI today - no volume?
Take a look at today's chart and connect it up with Friday afternoon . . . tighter than a clam's ass I tell ya
nice "etch-a-sketch" formation which I believe we will ride-out through the 10 day compliance window
the steady diet of monotony is a nice change (hmm, I think that's an oxymoron)
ring-ring, ring-ring
bud: Good morning, commissioner's office, bud selig speaking
mel: Hi bud, it's mel karmazin. Take me off speaker!
bud: Mel karmazin, how the hell are ya mel?
Mel: Lets cut the small talk bud. We need to rework this deal
bud: Been there done that mel. Ain't gonna happen. You know that.
Mel: You know the economics are different this time bud
bud: But spencer osborne says i hold all the cards & a 3 yr option
mel: Yeah, then what?
Bud: Well ah, um . . Well we cross that bridge when we get there
mel: Here's what i want bud . .
Bud: Now hold on mel, i won't be bullied here
mel: First, mlb on sirius is a must
bud: You know i can't do that mel . . .
Mel: 2nd, tear up the current deal and write a new 10 yr contract
bud: Now hold on mel . . .
Mel: A contract that is sensitive to the current economics
bud: Mel i have no authority . . .
Mel: It would make our partners at direct tv very happy bud
bud:
Mel: Bud?
Bud: Ahhhh, let me get back to you on that mel
mel: Click
Last edited by Sirius Roadkill; 04-19-2010 at 04:51 PM.
MLB Yet To Expand Satellite Radio Deal To Include Sirius
Under Current Arrangement, About 9 Million
Sirius Subscribers Will Not Get Live MLB Games
MLB and Sirius XM Satellite Radio are "sparring over whether to make MLB game broadcasts available to the entire spectrum of Sirius XM's 19 million subscribers," according to John Ourand in this week's SPORTSBUSINESS JOURNAL. Since XM merged with Sirius last July, MLB and Sirius XM execs have spent "several months negotiating whether to expand the access of live MLB games beyond just XM subscribers," which have had exclusive access to games due to an 11-year, $650M deal signed in '04. About 9 million Sirius listeners will not have access to MLB game broadcasts this season, and league execs want to maintain their exclusive platform "unless a new deal can be worked out." Sources indicated that the NFL and NBA, which originally signed exclusive deals with Sirius, "allowed their game programming to be broadcast on both for the same rights fee they had been getting." But MLB is "holding out, unless it can work a better deal, which almost certainly means a higher rights fee." MLB believes that the "volume of its game programming and its traditional appeal make it more valuable to satellite radio" than other sports properties. However, Morgan Joseph & Co. analyst David Kestenbaum said that Sirius XM "does not have the money to keep paying so much in rights fees." Kestenbaum: "I thought the original MLB deal was a foolish one for XM. I don't think enough new subscribers signed up to justify paying $60[M] per year." MLB's deal with XM expires in '15, and industry experts believe this the could be baseball's "last chance to have leverage with Sirius XM." Kestenbaum: "There definitely won't be any bidding wars for these sports rights next time" (SPORTSBUSINESS JOURNAL, 3/9 issue).
LINK:
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/128371
Last edited by Sirius Roadkill; 04-19-2010 at 05:08 PM.
Spencer Osborne
Reasonable People Drawing reasonable Conclusions. Much better than the other way around!
Cheers
Yea I was not even in HS but I remember and I cared even back then at that age. Now while I agree with your relationship with China (that we need each other to keep going) I dont think it will effect the hyperinflation we will be seeing in the end. As a matter of fact we may both (USA and China) be having our own and very seperate problems soon. China will be to busy dealing with its runaway economy and higher interest rates to tamp down on it and we will need to raise ours to deal with the increasing debt. Fact is, twits that say Bush polocies created this deep recession dont have a clue. I ask them everytime what was it about his tax cuts that cuased this deep recession again. They never have an answer to that. While Bush ran up debt it was much more sustainable then it is now and it did not cause hyperinflation, the rasing of interest rates or taxes. All of which are causes of a deep recession. What caused this deep recession was that people who could not pay for a house were able to get a house, there by making the banks fail. The fausehood is driven by saying that the big banks did it to themselves by buying those loans. The fact is that they would have been forced to do it because in the end what would have happened to the original banks that would not give the loans IN THE FIRST PLACE, would happen to the other big banks buying them up in the end. The reason is simple, look at what happen to the original banks when they told congress they could not give those types of loans because noone would buy them from them.....Enter Fanny Mea and Freddy Mac and the democrats that made it polocy for Fanny and Freddy to buy those loans. Now there were only so many home loans even they could buy up before they would then have to say listen we cant buy up anymore of those loans. I should not have to even get into the fact the big banks were in a sense lied to because they were not just buying those subprime loans they were mixed up with other investments. Not to mention it was not their job to make sure the loans were good and that the people getting them could actually pay them back (they did not even have the original parpers on the original home borrowers to confirm if they could pay them back) that was the job of the original banks but they were being forced (yes I say forced because there is a reason they never gave those loans before). I dont put to much blame on the big banks for the reason that if they knew the loans where even close to as bad as they were, they would have NEVER bought them in the first place. I can see them saying, well if Fanny and Freddy are buying the loans and they are basically run by the government there is no way the loans could be that bad.
The fact is the "DEEP" part about this recession was cause by the sense of intitlements and the reason socailism fails everytime it is tried. Not anyone is intitled to have a house.
Last edited by john; 04-20-2010 at 07:09 AM.
As for SIRIXM and its low volume. I will take a guess and say with all the investigations that are going on, everyone is skiddish about doing anything even remotely wrong. Just another guess but watch what happens to short positions.
Reply With Quote