No, Paramount is buying Sony pictures. If I ever walk into a movie and I see the words 'Sony Pictures' I walk out because thats how much I hate Sony.
JK! 
Tease.
| Squilliam said: No, Paramount is buying Sony pictures. If I ever walk into a movie and I see the words 'Sony Pictures' I walk out because thats how much I hate Sony. JK! |
or is it... *shifty eyes*
lol
Proud Sony Rear Admiral
leo-j said:
You can add spiderman, and resident evil to that along with 100 plus movies that have been released in video game form. |
Well to be fair Sony doesn't own those IP, they just own the rights to produce/distribute the movies. I'm sure they are contractually obligated to go multiplatform with the Video Game tie-in, either that or the video game and movie licenses are completely seperate.
I'm not sure what Sony original IP's have been turned into video games if there has even been any. I wouldn't be surprised if they went multiplat but I also wouldn't be surprised if they didn't.
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.
RVDondaPC said:
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. |
no shit... this is not a business class so I was aiming for general simple answer. This is why I said "can put on..." so that it shows that they new or merged company has then option of taking in or letting managers leave. This merger won't result in a new company though. It will still be Sony Pictures.
When shareholders get the option to buy stock created from the merger the company with the higher percentage of ownership typically has its shareholders buy-up a lot of the old company's stocks.
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. |
Not all mergers are like that, some mergers are just a new company like you said, more than likely it would be a Paramount-Sony Pictures thing where it's 50/50 ownership from Sony and Viacom, let's look at the mergers Sony has had
Sony Ericsson (50-50 venture between Sony and Ericsson)
Sony BMG (50-50 venture between Sony and BMG)
Sony ATV (50-50 venture between Sony and Michael Jackson)
MGM (Conglomerate where Sony owns 20%, Comcast owns 20%, Providence Equity owns 29%, TPG Capital owns 21%, Merchant Banking owns 7% and Quadrangle Group owns 3%)
I really don't think this would be anything other than a 50-50 venture
ssj12 said:
Adding Paramount's line up to Sony's will pretty much put Sony on top of the movie industry. There is no lose in this merger. Sony is bound to increase the company's networth while making billions more in box office and movie sales. |
ssj12 said:
no shit... this is not a business class so I was aiming for general simple answer. This is why I said "can put on..." so that it shows that they new or merged company has then option of taking in or letting managers leave. This merger won't result in a new company though. It will still be Sony Pictures. When shareholders get the option to buy stock created from the merger the company with the higher percentage of ownership typically has its shareholders buy-up a lot of the old company's stocks. |
Im sure you understand how a merger works and it's a good idea to break it down so people understand it easier but everything you say is rather misleading or incorrectly stated. I don't want the people that don't know how mergers work to get miseducated. If someone doesn't understand something they can ask for clarification. It's better than them assuming the wrong things.
Also your last statement is incorrect. No one buys any new stock. Old stock is either converted into the new stock at a set rate per the merger agreement or the holder of the old stock can take a cash buy out from the company that is generally at the same value of the conversion rate for the new stock. If someone purchases stock in the new company it is completely unrelated to the merger and has no effect on the conversion rate or buy out from the old stock.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
