Great News - Voom Is Here To Stay!!
- Thread starter ne1cool
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 216
- Views 39K
The letter of intent, negotiated by independent Cablevision directors, is subject to a definitive agreement by Feb. 28, Cablevision said.
A source said the Dolans won’t pay cash for the assets. Rather, they’ll assume Voom’s liabilities.
“For Cablevision, the transaction will allow it to avoid various shutdown costs and other liabilities of the Voom service which it would have incurred had it proceeded with its original plan to shut down the service,” Cablevision said in a prepared statement.
Charles Dolan has been a passionate advocate for Voom since the DBS service debuted in 2003, despite skepticism from Wall Street, Cablevision’s board, and even his own son, Cablevision CEO Jim Dolan. Voom has been a drag on Cablevision’s stock, and some observers said last week that Dolan’s fixation on Voom suggests he may finally sell the company’s prized New York City-area cable systems.
Fulcrum Global Partners analyst Richard Greenfield said in a research note that the deal “clearly shows Chuck Dolan’s obsession with Voom and his complete lack of interest in the core cable business, which could indicate a willingness to sell the cable assets.”
Greenfield also said it would be smart for Time Warner Cable to abandon a plan to buy Adelphia Communications Corp. with Comcast Corp. and pursue Cablevision’s metropolitan New York systems and its 2.3 million subscribers instead.
While Tom Dolan said in a prepared statement that Voom HD is happy to have a deal that “will permit us to continue Voom’s state-of-the-art service for its customers,” The Carmel Group analyst Jimmy Schaeffler said be believes the Dolans may eventually shut down Voom, and make a business of licensing Voom’s original HDTV networks to other distributors.
“Voom may decide, 'The hell with infrastructure — let’s focus on HD content. Let’s keep building those assets, and let’s become the arms-supply merchant to the whole industry,’ ” Schaeffler said.
If the Dolans continue to operate Voom, EchoStar might resist leasing it the satellite space to power the service.
But Schaeffler said Voom could also turn to Dominion Video Satellite to lease satellite space.
Voom also is buying wireless licenses that Rainbow DBS affiliate company DTV Norwich acquired in the Federal Communications Commission’s Multichannel Video and Distribution Data Service auction last year for $84.6 million. The Dolans could use those wireless assets to deliver Voom’s HDTV channels, but it would require a huge capital outlay to construct wireless towers and deploy equipment needed to receive the signals.
Cablevision investors cheered the agreement, sending the MSO’s stock price up 89 cents, to $27.48, by Friday afternoon.
A source said the Dolans won’t pay cash for the assets. Rather, they’ll assume Voom’s liabilities.
“For Cablevision, the transaction will allow it to avoid various shutdown costs and other liabilities of the Voom service which it would have incurred had it proceeded with its original plan to shut down the service,” Cablevision said in a prepared statement.
Charles Dolan has been a passionate advocate for Voom since the DBS service debuted in 2003, despite skepticism from Wall Street, Cablevision’s board, and even his own son, Cablevision CEO Jim Dolan. Voom has been a drag on Cablevision’s stock, and some observers said last week that Dolan’s fixation on Voom suggests he may finally sell the company’s prized New York City-area cable systems.
Fulcrum Global Partners analyst Richard Greenfield said in a research note that the deal “clearly shows Chuck Dolan’s obsession with Voom and his complete lack of interest in the core cable business, which could indicate a willingness to sell the cable assets.”
Greenfield also said it would be smart for Time Warner Cable to abandon a plan to buy Adelphia Communications Corp. with Comcast Corp. and pursue Cablevision’s metropolitan New York systems and its 2.3 million subscribers instead.
While Tom Dolan said in a prepared statement that Voom HD is happy to have a deal that “will permit us to continue Voom’s state-of-the-art service for its customers,” The Carmel Group analyst Jimmy Schaeffler said be believes the Dolans may eventually shut down Voom, and make a business of licensing Voom’s original HDTV networks to other distributors.
“Voom may decide, 'The hell with infrastructure — let’s focus on HD content. Let’s keep building those assets, and let’s become the arms-supply merchant to the whole industry,’ ” Schaeffler said.
If the Dolans continue to operate Voom, EchoStar might resist leasing it the satellite space to power the service.
But Schaeffler said Voom could also turn to Dominion Video Satellite to lease satellite space.
Voom also is buying wireless licenses that Rainbow DBS affiliate company DTV Norwich acquired in the Federal Communications Commission’s Multichannel Video and Distribution Data Service auction last year for $84.6 million. The Dolans could use those wireless assets to deliver Voom’s HDTV channels, but it would require a huge capital outlay to construct wireless towers and deploy equipment needed to receive the signals.
Cablevision investors cheered the agreement, sending the MSO’s stock price up 89 cents, to $27.48, by Friday afternoon.
Reply From Swann
Dear Mr. Anonymous,
I can't take seriously anyone who writes a letter but doesn't have the courage to sign it.
Swanni Sez
I will resend and sign my name and apologize for the harsh remarks. It just irritates me to see how many "analysts" want to see VOOM dead. Why? You would think they would rally around new technology like people did in the .com era, or is that the issue?
If I offended anyone on the board I sincerely apologize, but this is really how I feel about these people.
kfried001 said:
Dear Mr. Anonymous,
I can't take seriously anyone who writes a letter but doesn't have the courage to sign it.
Swanni Sez
I will resend and sign my name and apologize for the harsh remarks. It just irritates me to see how many "analysts" want to see VOOM dead. Why? You would think they would rally around new technology like people did in the .com era, or is that the issue?
If I offended anyone on the board I sincerely apologize, but this is really how I feel about these people.
Analysts like companies with sound business models. They don't have problems with companies that are losing money IF they are ramping up nicely towards a sustainable business model. V* does NOT have one right now. I'm happy that it look slike Mr. Dolan is willing to risk $1 Billion of his own money to keep it going. I don't have a problem with that (Mark Cuban is also losing money on HDNet but at a much smaller scale). I just have a problem signing up for a service that can't convince more than 520 people PER STATE to sign up for the service. So basically, each state on average can fit all their V* subscribers into one semi-large movie theater. UNLESS they can add at least two zeroes to the end of that subscriber count, the business is going nowhere without massive subsidies which no independent investor will provide. Charlie Dolan is obsessed with V*, but that doesn't mean it is a good business decision.
Once again, congrats on kicking the executioner out of the area for the time being.... I just can't see how this is going to be a permanent fix.
Once again, congrats on kicking the executioner out of the area for the time being.... I just can't see how this is going to be a permanent fix.
BobMurdoch said:
I knew he was taking the business standpoint, but I think what has prevented VOOM from having more subs was the retention issue which I think is pretty much solved. I think this was do to poor installs, repeat programming which has gotten tremendously better as well as the lack of SD channels that families have grown used to having. This should change as well next month. The thing that gets me is that not one analyst has ever had anything good to say about VOOM and I think it has hurt business a little.
As far as the business plan, I am not sure they don't have one. Previosuly I think the marketing sucked, the CSRs were rude etc... and it seems like Wilt and Lori Hinchman were the only ones to turn to to get help. I also think there was noone manning the helm and that is a leadership problem. I think Mr. Dolan and is son need to limit the number of execs in the new VOOM and keep a finger on the pulse themselves.
Thanks for "kick ass" remark
This post is almost funny.
First:
"IF they are ramping up nicely towards a sustainable business model. V* does NOT have one right now"
Sorry...but I don't think you're really aware of WHAT the plan is...anymore than anyone else on here.
Next:
"I just have a problem signing up for a service that can't convince more than 520 people PER STATE to sign up for the service"
Who cares how many people per state sign up for it? Do you base all of your consumer choices on popularity?
Next:
"UNLESS they can add at least two zeroes to the end of that subscriber count, the business is going nowhere without massive subsidies "
Why do you care about subsidies? People get this service because they look at the content that's offered, and they feel they will enjoy watching that content. It costs you $1 to have it installed. If they go under, doesn't cost you a dime.
And finally:
"Charlie Dolan is obsessed with V*, but that doesn't mean it is a good business decision"
This is a pretty big assumption on your part. I don't think you have any knowledge of what he may or may not be obsessed with.
And before getting flamed, I'm not one of the people here that's obsessed with VOOM. I like the content, and have had no problems with the service. In other words, it has met my expectations and has delivered what they commited to deliver. But I'm amazed at the number of people who seem to have some sort of phsycic link with the Dolans, OR have much more knowledge of Dolan's business than even HE seems to.
This guy is a succesful business man. And even if this becomes a total failure to be known only as "Dolan's Folly", and he sinks his entire $2B fortune in to it, I figure that's enough to keep it going to another 4-5yrs, maybe more, and I'll enjoy the service as long as it offers the things that I want to watch
Lob
First:
"IF they are ramping up nicely towards a sustainable business model. V* does NOT have one right now"
Sorry...but I don't think you're really aware of WHAT the plan is...anymore than anyone else on here.
Next:
"I just have a problem signing up for a service that can't convince more than 520 people PER STATE to sign up for the service"
Who cares how many people per state sign up for it? Do you base all of your consumer choices on popularity?
Next:
"UNLESS they can add at least two zeroes to the end of that subscriber count, the business is going nowhere without massive subsidies "
Why do you care about subsidies? People get this service because they look at the content that's offered, and they feel they will enjoy watching that content. It costs you $1 to have it installed. If they go under, doesn't cost you a dime.
And finally:
"Charlie Dolan is obsessed with V*, but that doesn't mean it is a good business decision"
This is a pretty big assumption on your part. I don't think you have any knowledge of what he may or may not be obsessed with.
And before getting flamed, I'm not one of the people here that's obsessed with VOOM. I like the content, and have had no problems with the service. In other words, it has met my expectations and has delivered what they commited to deliver. But I'm amazed at the number of people who seem to have some sort of phsycic link with the Dolans, OR have much more knowledge of Dolan's business than even HE seems to.
This guy is a succesful business man. And even if this becomes a total failure to be known only as "Dolan's Folly", and he sinks his entire $2B fortune in to it, I figure that's enough to keep it going to another 4-5yrs, maybe more, and I'll enjoy the service as long as it offers the things that I want to watch
Lob
No flames coming your way, man....Lobstah said:This post is almost funny.
And before getting flamed, I'm not one of the people here that's obsessed with VOOM. I like the content, and have had no problems with the service. In other words, it has met my expectations and has delivered what they commited to deliver.
Lob
I feel EXACTLY the way you do about this stuff...
I like the content, and until the most recent firmware change, I was totally problem free. I had a roof-top antenna upgrade done when I requested it, both the original installer and the man who came to upgrade the rooftop antenna were on time, courteous, and did decent work.
I also hope it lasts another 5 year or more!!
BobMurdoch said:
I use original 61.5 E* dish for V*. Installer just connected wires from that dish to Voom receiver. I still have dormant E* account with shopping channels and Charlie Chats from Dish 500 (until it will not cost me money. I have $5 E* Club credit until March to offset $5 dormant fee. After that E* will go).
The only thing that bothers me are your anti V* posts. But maybe it will help to see the bright side for yourself.
But you haven't seen the Word of Mouth results, YET...
Don't count it out, word of mouth has built mountains before!!
GO VOOMERS! GO VOOMERS! GO VOOMERS!!
Vicki
...and that is where the "onesies" and "twosies" may come in!BobMurdoch said:
Don't count it out, word of mouth has built mountains before!!
Lemme give this one a whirl with all due respect to the honorable crustacean who responded to my post.......
1. The basic plan of any business is to make money. Most have to lose money for a while ramping up to get to the point where they don't need investors with deep pockets anymore. Some raise money with stock like Sirius. Others raise money from a parent company like GM did with D* and like Cablevision did with V*. Others may be financed by individuals with really deep pockets (Al Neuharth started USA Today and lost money for ten years before it turned into the cash cow it is today. Those "TV set" resembling newspaper dispensers cost a lot at first).
The major problem here is that you need to hit certain waypoints along the way to satisfy investors UNLESS you are financing it by yourself, in which case you only need to look in the mirror instead of giving quarterly speeches regarding the health of the enterprise. Add in the fact that in the post Enron era, shareholders are getting litigious and pursuing judicial action (ie. lawsuits) when they feel that their executives' "fidiciary responsibilty" is not being met. THIS is the major reason why James turned on his father. James is now free from ridicule from the Cablevision stockholders. Even if V* magically turns around he can point to the deafening chorus of "GET OUT OF V*!" missives he received from shareholders and analysts.
As much as I appreciate your desire to have something you want survive (Hey, I miss the coronary inducing Triple Decker Pizza from Pizza Hut, but they dropped when not enough were sold.... life's rough... wear a helmet), the bottom line is that a measly 26,000 subscribers are signed up. For a billion dollar investment they have secured 0.026% of the multichannel TV market after a year and a half based on 100 Million TV watching households. Laserdiscs were considered a colossal failure and they managed to capture 5% of the market at their peak which is 200 times LARGER than the market share V* has. Worse still, churn 4-5 times the level of D* and E* siphons off the people they do manage to attract to the service.
2. Basing choices on popularity.... Yes, I do base my choices on popularity. Sony's Beta format had superior picture quality and smaller size but failed when they tried to attain market dominance over the then burgeoning VCR market. JVC forged alliances with many other manufacturers and were able to convince consumers that the larger recording capacity was more desirable. DAT and Digital Compact Cassette were generational leaps over cassette tapes in the early 90's but they weren't marketed properly and the manufacturers didn't drop the prices to convince consumers to migrate to the new format (Ditto for DVD Audio and SACD..... which are technically superior with multichannel sound, but can't be played in most cars or walkmans, can't be copied, have limited catalogs (why is it that Donald Fagen's The Nightfly always seems to be the guinea pig release of any new technology?)and cost too much to boot. Bottom line, if they don't achieve critical mass, they stop growing and die, leaving you with a brick. Not bad if you leased the box, bad if you shelled out $500 for it.
3. Re: caring about subsidies - you got me there. If it only costs you a buck, go for it. I didn't say that this was a negative for the consumer, only that the enterprise needs massive cash transfusions to keep the service up and running. I pointed this out mainly to show that investors were not going to be lining up to potentially throw their money away on this venture without SOME kind of hint that things are moving in the right direction.
4. Other than the hardcore fan V* subscribers, no unbiased independent analyst or investment entity thinks that the business plan will work. Cablevision finally amputated the division to stop the money hemorrage. Charlie Dolan either is obsessed with proving his vision right, or the critics' naysaying wrong. He has a right to do whatever he wants with his own money. Paul Allen, who made his billions of of Microsoft has poured buckets of money into ventures that never panned out, but that were important to his vision of the "future". He is free to do with his money what he wants. Since he now seems to be less enamored with transferring assets to his children through an inheritance (at least the one who crossed him), he will have to sell assets to provide collateral to continue to fund the losses. Assuming that a massive upsurge in subscribers doesn't occur, he can do this for a year or two, if he wants to go that way. Remember, he now has to go and find another method of delivering his content now that Rainbow 1 is going to E* (ironically, V* continuing may have made FCC approval even more likely)
Once again, I appreciate the debate as the topic interests me. I have no ill will towards V* (but I am more than happy that my E* will get more bandwidth and newer technology when the Rainbow 1 sales finalizes). Congratulations on getting the service's death knell postponed. I may even be wrong and masses of people will begin to swarm to get V*. I'll then come here and eat crow if I'm wrong. Good luck and we'll see who gets proven right over the next few months (and maybe even years if Charlie decides to ride it out that long)
1. The basic plan of any business is to make money. Most have to lose money for a while ramping up to get to the point where they don't need investors with deep pockets anymore. Some raise money with stock like Sirius. Others raise money from a parent company like GM did with D* and like Cablevision did with V*. Others may be financed by individuals with really deep pockets (Al Neuharth started USA Today and lost money for ten years before it turned into the cash cow it is today. Those "TV set" resembling newspaper dispensers cost a lot at first).
The major problem here is that you need to hit certain waypoints along the way to satisfy investors UNLESS you are financing it by yourself, in which case you only need to look in the mirror instead of giving quarterly speeches regarding the health of the enterprise. Add in the fact that in the post Enron era, shareholders are getting litigious and pursuing judicial action (ie. lawsuits) when they feel that their executives' "fidiciary responsibilty" is not being met. THIS is the major reason why James turned on his father. James is now free from ridicule from the Cablevision stockholders. Even if V* magically turns around he can point to the deafening chorus of "GET OUT OF V*!" missives he received from shareholders and analysts.
As much as I appreciate your desire to have something you want survive (Hey, I miss the coronary inducing Triple Decker Pizza from Pizza Hut, but they dropped when not enough were sold.... life's rough... wear a helmet), the bottom line is that a measly 26,000 subscribers are signed up. For a billion dollar investment they have secured 0.026% of the multichannel TV market after a year and a half based on 100 Million TV watching households. Laserdiscs were considered a colossal failure and they managed to capture 5% of the market at their peak which is 200 times LARGER than the market share V* has. Worse still, churn 4-5 times the level of D* and E* siphons off the people they do manage to attract to the service.
2. Basing choices on popularity.... Yes, I do base my choices on popularity. Sony's Beta format had superior picture quality and smaller size but failed when they tried to attain market dominance over the then burgeoning VCR market. JVC forged alliances with many other manufacturers and were able to convince consumers that the larger recording capacity was more desirable. DAT and Digital Compact Cassette were generational leaps over cassette tapes in the early 90's but they weren't marketed properly and the manufacturers didn't drop the prices to convince consumers to migrate to the new format (Ditto for DVD Audio and SACD..... which are technically superior with multichannel sound, but can't be played in most cars or walkmans, can't be copied, have limited catalogs (why is it that Donald Fagen's The Nightfly always seems to be the guinea pig release of any new technology?)and cost too much to boot. Bottom line, if they don't achieve critical mass, they stop growing and die, leaving you with a brick. Not bad if you leased the box, bad if you shelled out $500 for it.
3. Re: caring about subsidies - you got me there. If it only costs you a buck, go for it. I didn't say that this was a negative for the consumer, only that the enterprise needs massive cash transfusions to keep the service up and running. I pointed this out mainly to show that investors were not going to be lining up to potentially throw their money away on this venture without SOME kind of hint that things are moving in the right direction.
4. Other than the hardcore fan V* subscribers, no unbiased independent analyst or investment entity thinks that the business plan will work. Cablevision finally amputated the division to stop the money hemorrage. Charlie Dolan either is obsessed with proving his vision right, or the critics' naysaying wrong. He has a right to do whatever he wants with his own money. Paul Allen, who made his billions of of Microsoft has poured buckets of money into ventures that never panned out, but that were important to his vision of the "future". He is free to do with his money what he wants. Since he now seems to be less enamored with transferring assets to his children through an inheritance (at least the one who crossed him), he will have to sell assets to provide collateral to continue to fund the losses. Assuming that a massive upsurge in subscribers doesn't occur, he can do this for a year or two, if he wants to go that way. Remember, he now has to go and find another method of delivering his content now that Rainbow 1 is going to E* (ironically, V* continuing may have made FCC approval even more likely)
Once again, I appreciate the debate as the topic interests me. I have no ill will towards V* (but I am more than happy that my E* will get more bandwidth and newer technology when the Rainbow 1 sales finalizes). Congratulations on getting the service's death knell postponed. I may even be wrong and masses of people will begin to swarm to get V*. I'll then come here and eat crow if I'm wrong. Good luck and we'll see who gets proven right over the next few months (and maybe even years if Charlie decides to ride it out that long)
Minsk1 said:The only thing that bothers me are your anti V* posts. But maybe it will help to see the bright side for yourself.
Maybe.... I'll look in to it once they get their PVR out the door IF they have another lease deal with the PVR to protect me from V* going poof. I will never again watch TV without a PVR.
Once again, apologies if I've angered any of you. I've tried to avoid becoming one of those "you people are idiots" trolls that I hate (I've suffered through dozens of them from D* as an E* subscriber). I'm only trying to discuss it from a rational standpoint as it interests the old college student in me (this sounds like one of the debates that would have gotten heated in class as the class took different sides on the company's outlook). I respect your intentions to push the technology envelope. Part of me wishes V* would do better so that it would spur D* and E* to ramp up THEIR HD offerings faster. I just can't shake the feeling that the body is dead but it hasn't pitched forward yet. I predicted that V* would be dead by Spring 2005 a year ago, and now it looks like Mr.Dolan will prove me wrong in that respect. Good luck and enjoy your service in the meantime.
BobMurdoch said:
It's just funny to see how pissed off you are on this...
You're saying this Nth times on this page... we got it, thank you, it's boring now, believe me...
Not pissed off, just strangely energized by the debate.
Thanks for the spirited discussion. I'll go away now and until new news surfaces.
Thanks for the spirited discussion. I'll go away now and until new news surfaces.
There's so much here I'm not sure I can deal with it all, so I'll just be short and to the point
BobMurdoch said:Lemme give this one a whirl with all due respect to the honorable crustacean who responded to my post.......
1. The basic plan of any business is to make money.
Don't really care about all this "Bus 101" stuff. We already know this, and I still don't see where it has any impact on becoming a customer.
Add in the fact that in the post Enron era, shareholders are getting litigious and pursuing judicial action (ie. lawsuits) when they feel that their executives' "fidiciary responsibilty" is not being met.
Who cares? Is VOOM publicly traded? This just doesn't matter.
the bottom line is that a measly 26,000 subscribers are signed up.
Again with this? Doesn't matter.
For a billion dollar investment they have secured 0.026% of the multichannel TV market after a year and a half based on 100 Million TV watching households.
One more time, doesn't matter. If you like the content, subscribe...if you don't, don't.
Laserdiscs were considered a colossal failure and they managed to capture 5% of the market at their peak which is 200 times LARGER than the market share V* has. Worse still, churn 4-5 times the level of D* and E* siphons off the people they do manage to attract to the service.
Again...lol...WHO CARES? This has nothing to do with VOOM, or Dolan
2. Basing choices on popularity.... Yes, I do base my choices on popularity. Sony's Beta format had superior picture quality and smaller size but failed when they tried to attain market dominance over the then burgeoning VCR market.
Sorry, but this isn't a valid analogy...you don't have to buy anything to get VOOM. So it's not like you're going to get stuck with a $500 boat anchor.
Bottom line, if they don't achieve critical mass, they stop growing and die, leaving you with a brick. Not bad if you leased the box, bad if you shelled out $500 for it.
Same response as above. This has nothing to do with VOOM, you don't buy anything.[/B]
3. Re: caring about subsidies - you got me there. If it only costs you a buck, go for it.
[B]This is exactly my point.
4. Other than the hardcore fan V* subscribers, no unbiased independent analyst or investment entity thinks that the business plan will work.
So how many investors have seen the new business plan? You don't know. In fact, you probably don't know if it's even been shown to anyone, so why are you making this statement? It's patently false. If you said "the OLD business plan", that would be one thing, but then that doesn't fit this scenario, because it's no longer applicable.
Charlie Dolan either is obsessed with proving his vision right, or the critics' naysaying wrong.
I don't think you really know what he may or may not be obsessed with[/B].
He has a right to do whatever he wants with his own money. Paul Allen, who made his billions of of Microsoft has poured buckets of money into ventures that never panned out, but that were important to his vision of the "future".
Interesting example. He's lost millions and millions on Charter, my cable service. Are you in the Charter forum explaining to the poor unfortunates there that Paul Allen is obsessed?
He is free to do with his money what he wants. Since he now seems to be less enamored with transferring assets to his children through an inheritance (at least the one who crossed him), he will have to sell assets to provide collateral to continue to fund the losses.
Amazing that I keep saying this. How do you know this? Did you help him re-write his will? You don't know what he's enamored with and what he's not...why do you keep making this stuff up?
QUOTE]
Have to say...I just can't understand why you keep beating on the business plan that you know nothing about, Dolan's intentions, which you know nothing about, and what he's going to do with his money?
Lob
It's fascinating to watch Dolan maneuver on VOOM. All of your intellect tells you that he can't succeed against what looks like insurmountable odds (high churn, overwhelming cost/subscriber loss ratio, entrenched competition, ...), but in the back of your mind, there's that "What if?".Lobstah said:... Have to say...I just can't understand why you keep beating on the business plan that you know nothing about, Dolan's intentions, which you know nothing about, and what he's going to do with his money?
Lob
Suppose Dolan does fund VOOM out of his own pocket (likely, since Wall Street has clearly indicated what they think of VOOM as CVC stocks have risen twice since divestiture was announced)?
How long can he keep absorbing the loss?
How can he cut expenses to something that makes VOOM viable?
How to attract millions of new customers while keeping costs down?
How to keep current customers while reducing costs?
I'm really looking forward to watching the drama unfold.
Don't get me wrong...I'm enjoying it as well. I have been a business owner, and I've worked around technology for 35yrs now. This really is fascinating.
I just don't like it when people present things as facts, when they're purely opinion. Politicians are famous for this...lol
Lob
I just don't like it when people present things as facts, when they're purely opinion.
Politicians are famous for this...lolLob
Did anyone noticed that certain members of the Dolan family recent converted shares of Class B Common Stock (voting rights) for Class A Common Stock (non-voting shares)? Very interesting!!!
Looks like Larry Dolan may be preparing to divest himself of some of his Cablevision interest by raising some marketable common shares. Hopefully he will commit some of the proceeds to increase the payroll of the Cleveland Indians as the team appears ready to get back into contention.
Similar threads
