By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
aTokenYeti on 27 January 2022
Edit Thread
DonFerrari said:
Machiavellian said:

You know there are 2 parts to the sell right.  First there is the sell and the price for the sale that goes to regulation to for approval, then there is the contracts on the sale that goes to the board for approval.  One is public, the other is not.  Once approval is given, then they start hashing out all the terms of the sell.  Some parts can be done before approval, others will not happen until after approval.  Its not a straight up simple process, there are multiple layers.

Also you seem to equate internet outrage to business deals as if the 2 are equal.  Just because you may believe Bobby is an ass does not mean the board does or higher ups in MS.  Believing that MS is going to have Bobby retire because of some HR blunders does not always pan out that way.  I am sure someone will take the fall but who knows if its going to be Bobby.  Speculating what will happen until this deal is done is probably a waste of time, none of it is going to be known until it actually happens since it will be C level and board type discussions which rarely leaks.

You do know that it was claimed and accepted that Bobby and other high level execs were the core of the problem, and also aware that MS said they would approach Acti in a different manner right?

And sure I do know that there are documents that aren't released. It isn't even uncommon for a deal of this size to have had a NDA signed several months or even year in advance with a MOU and action plan.

Also not questioning the internet outrage. My question is, do you believe that if MS wanted Bobby and other high level execs fired right away the moment the deal was made public (or even before) could they demand it? And do you you believe that they could have demanded that games released before the deal was approved be released only on Xbox and PC?

If you believe they could, then why didn't MS demand the solution of the first problem?

Not the guy you were asking, but Microsoft is legally not able to make any demands of Activison’s board until they take full control of the company. The board has a fiduciary responsibility to respond to the shareholders until the deal is complete, which is why both parties are remaining extremely vague about the post merger plans.