Netflix-CEO-Ted-Sarandos-says-he-bailed-on-WBD-because.jpeg

Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos says he bailed on WBD because of the deal’s price, not because of Donald Trump

Did Netflix walk away from Warner Bros. Discovery because of money? Or because of politics?

Money, says Netflix boss Ted Sarandos. Just money.

Sarandos, the streamer’s co-CEO, says Netflix pulled out of the WBD bidding war — ultimately won by Larry and David Ellison’s Paramount — because Netflix didn’t want to raise the price it would pay for WBD’s studio and HBO business.

The fact that the proposed Netflix/WBD deal was getting pushback from Republicans in Washington — and other regulators in the US and around the world — was not an issue, Sarandos said in an interview this weekend.

“I still believe in all the positives. I just believed in them up to $27.75 a share,” Sarandos told Bloomberg, referring to the price Netflix originally agreed to pay for WBD’s studio business and HBO unit in December.

I don’t know that Sarandos’ argument will entirely sway those who think the Ellisons’ attempts to court President Donald Trump and other Republicans had an impact on Netflix’s calculus. David Ellison, for example, attended last week’s State of the Union address as the guest of Trump ally Sen. Lindsay Graham.

Adding fuel to those theories: Netflix announced that it was withdrawing from the WBD auction shortly after Sarandos visited the White House on Thursday. But Sarandos says nothing in that meeting had anything to do with his decision. “It was a very productive meeting, nothing out of the ordinary,” he said.

Instead, Sarandos said, Netflix had already decided to bow out earlier that day, as soon as WBD told the company that Paramount’s most recent bid was a “superior proposal.” Just about everyone in the media world expected Netflix to counter that offer with a new one of their own.

But asked repeatedly about what role Trump and any other politician had in his decision, Sarandos insisted that the answer was zero.

“Things have been going exactly the way they should,” he said, arguing that “the president stayed completely neutral on this.”

This is also what Sarandos had said for the last few weeks, when asked if politics and/or Trump’s preferences would influence the deal. That made sense at the time — why complain about politics at the same time you’re trying to woo politicians?

And it may continue to make sense, given that Netflix may end up back in Washington in the future, asking for a sign-off on a different deal. (Sarandos did say it was “unlikely” he would try to buy something else in the next year or so.)

But what about Trump’s interest in the fate of CNN, which is currently owned by WBD, and which will become part of Paramount, assuming the deal closes? Trump had previously announced that it was “imperative that CNN be sold”.

Follow that idea to its logical conclusion, and it would mean that Trump would favor the Paramount bid, since it was for all of WBD, including CNN. The Netflix bid didn’t include the news network or WBD’s other basic cable channels.

“Once it was clear that we weren’t in the CNN business, it was a lot less interesting. He didn’t care that much more about our deal,” Sarandos said.

I wanted to make sure I understood what Sarandos was saying: Was it that once Trump realized Netflix didn’t want to buy CNN, he didn’t support Netflix buying any part of WBD? Or was it that once Trump realized Netflix didn’t want to buy CNN, he became less interested in its outcome, period?

The latter, a Netflix rep told me Sunday.




Source link

Paramount-wanted-to-use-24-billion-in-Middle-Eastern-money.jpeg

Paramount wanted to use $24 billion in Middle Eastern money to help buy WBD. That’s not why Netflix won.

Larry and David Ellison, who own Paramount, want to use $24 billion in Middle Eastern money to finance their bid for Warner Bros. Discovery. Is that a problem for WBD?

You might think so — especially since $10 billion of that came from the Saudi government. That’s the same government that US intelligence said killed a Washington Post journalist in 2018. The kind of partner you might think a major American media conglomerate would want to keep at arm’s length.

But that’s not a problem WBD raises in its newest communication to shareholders, where it urges them to take the deal offered by Netflix instead.

What actually worries WBD about the Ellisons’ bid isn’t the Ellisons’ particular partners. It’s that the Ellisons had partners.

In a regulatory filing that tells the backstory of the proposed WBD sale, WBD execs and their reps repeatedly told the Ellisons they wanted a firm commitment that Larry Ellison — currently the world’s 5th-richest man, with an estimated net worth of $243 billion — would guarantee the deal himself.

Instead, WBD argues, the Ellisons never gave them the assurances they wanted.

The filing does bring up the fact that money from Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds would likely complicate regulatory issues for a proposed Ellison/Paramount deal. (Ditto for a proposed $1 billion investment from China’s Tencent, which the Ellisons later took out of their proposal.) But those are presented as technical hurdles. Not moral or patriotic dealbreakers.

And they’re just part of a laundry list of complaints WBD makes about the Ellisons. Among them: A December 2 tweet from New York Post reporter Charlie Gasparino, which WBD said violated a confidentiality agreement Paramount had signed.

And when it comes to the main pitch WBD is making to investors, all of that stuff disappears. It just boils down to “we did our homework, and the Netflix deal is better.”

That’s not shocking: If you’re a WBD investor, you are (supposedly) only interested in getting the maximum value for shares. And WBD’s filing argues that Netflix is the one that can pay the most.

Now we’re waiting to see what the Ellisons do next: Many observers believe they’ll return with yet another, higher bid. Will this one have Gulf money, too?




Source link