On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Tom Wolper <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 12:28 PM, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I am surprised that Ergen can make money just be selling off the old BB > > buildings - why didn't Blockbuster either do that themselves, or charge > > Ergen more money? > > When Kmart and Sears merged it was pointed out, in a business article > on Slate, I believe, that the true value in both companies lies in the > real estate they own, not the retail business. Blockbuster as an > independent business or a subsidiary of Viacom probably ran up more > debt than the value of its buildings. A bankruptcy would erase that > debt but only on the condition that someone else bought the business. > So selling the property at a profit is available to Ergen in a way it > was not to Viacom. > > As to charging Ergen more money, they were in bankruptcy and had > little leverage for the negotiations. They might have asked for more > money, based on the real estate value of the buildings, and ended up > settling for less. > I see. This (obviously) is not an area of expertise for me; I would have thought that there was some kind of bankruptcy judge or appointed trustee who would have sought to get a fair price. It seems Blockbuster's creditors would have been better served by liquidating the assets and paying off more of the debt obligations. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
