|
There are obviously a lot of lovely things about this situation to go around, but as a public company, could WWE have realistically turned this down without a shareholder revolt that had massive long-term implications up to and including the McMahons being removed from the board and/or share price crashing to hostile takeover levels? At $25m a show, 2x shows a year across 10 years, that’s half a billion dollars for a company valued at ~3 billion. “Instantly book 1/6 the company’s current value basically for free” seems to be the kind of thing that you can’t really turn down once you’re listed. (I know, capitalism sucks, etc.)
|
#
¿
May 6, 2018 05:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 11:47 |
|
|
ChrisBTY posted:Maybe, maybe not. I get where you’re coming from, but I’m saying you could make a good case that WWE essentially had to take that offer, at least from the standpoint of a public traded company being beholden to its shareholders interests. This means if you have an opportunity to increase your company’s book value overnight by $500m with what amounts to zero effort, you almost legally have to, or you open yourself to a scorched earth shareholder revolt and/or hostile takeover. Turning down half a billion dollars on a three billion dollar company probably would have seen the shareholders boot the entire board, ultimately, finally wresting it from McMahon control. (Granted, this may be a good thing, depending on your view.) Of course, I doubt anyone involved in the running of this carny company so much as blinked at the deal. *(I wish WWE wasn’t tied to the shareholder game as much as anyone in this thread, because chances are we’d get a much better product than the mostly sanitized stuff we see today.)
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2018 07:15
|
|