That would not affect exclusivity contract...
Exclusivity is not related to stock ownership.
Whether ATT physically owns ATHM shares or not is irrelevant to the ATHM bull case.
Physically as opposed to virtually?
Of course, some hotheads may figure that this is bad news for ATHM.
If they divest of ATHM instead of RR? Not going to happen and it did it would be bad news in the short run, good in the long run. But they will divest of RR before ATHM.
Let them sell their shares. I'll buy all I can get under $30. I did today and I have plenty of firepower left.
I'm impressed, you have 4 billion worth of fire power? That's their stake. And I have to say you must be a really nice guy to offer to prop up the stock like that.
ATT is involved in some kind of gamesmanship with AOL. Are they trying to screw up AOL-TWDX deal?
It's called the game of Monopoly....if you want my Park Place you have to give me St. James , Marvin Gardens, your Railroads, etc. RR is a bargaining chip to T.
If ATT agrees to sell ATHM, that means AOL is pressurred into giving up Roadrunner.
Huh? Why?
If ATT plays the good corporate citizen angle and gets the FCC to agree to the ploy, then a precedent is set and AOL is forced to cough up Roadrunner.
This part is just plain silly.
If this scenario is true, I'll give ATT credit for pure deviousnessness!
Then we would have two pure broadband plays competing with each other.
T wants a pipe into your home. How would T giving up the larger for the smaller make sense (they'll only own a third of RR and not have the 58% voting control they now have in ATHM), especially with AOL owning the other 2/3 of RR? You can't really believe that T has a plan to give up ATHM to force AOL to give up RR, it's ludicrous. It's like I'll give up my house to see if I can get you to get rid of your car. |
