ssj12 said:
You do know how mergers work right? one party allows the other party to buy all their assets with an agreement that members of the old company can be put on the board of directors or in high executive positions. Some times this can lead to a brand new company like Activision Blizzard but most of the time it doesn't. So while Viacom is sending Paramount out to pasture while making tons of cash in the process, Paramount's higher ups will become Sony's higher ups. |
That's not how mergers work. Mergers don't always have to do with the "higher ups" of the companies being merged. It has more to do with the ownership of the company. Mergers mean the share holders of the two previous companies share the ownership of the new company, not necessarily the task of running the new company. Generally the merged company will take management from the different companies as they want the best executives, some older executives choose to leave the new company, or the company may just require more managers as it is bigger now. But that is not always the case.
Regardless of the situation what makes something a merger is the sharing of ownership, not a promise to bring on the old company's board of directors.
Anyways it seems to me that the merger would just be the distribution arm of the two companies not a complete merger. Sounds more like a partnership than a merger, and it's definitely not a take over like some people seem to think.
