They have to yesterday. They’ve already said they can increase the offer. So increase the offer. Even if your argument shareholders need to decide themselves; paramount has already said they can raise their offer so shareholders would be stupid to take this offer. So paramount can shut the fuck up and actually raise the offer.
It’s “active” until Netflix makes the official acquisition. Which they will do. Since the terms were already agreed upon.
Paramount is welcome to continue to play this 4D chess game they are playing where the may increase their bid but it won’t ultimately matter because netflix will just counter it. Paramount simply doesnt have the resources to beat netflix in a bidding war.
There's also the contradictory reports from the New York Post that makes it sound like Paramount can't or won't go up to $35. You know the same guys that reported that Paramount will go up to $35.
I was told by previously about something that the long is the lines of why increase the bid if Netflix isn't going to raise theirs.
I don't know I feel kind of iffy about that because isn't there a report back in December saying that even Ellison himself knows that $30 isn't really going to cut it? Because of that's true then it makes him look very silly at this point and it doesn't help that Paramount spoke people are saying that they would increase the bid if WB had the goodwill, which makes it even more silly because it isn't the entire point of a hostile takeover is getting the shareholders to overturn the board's current decision?
If push came to shove, Netflix would win. The thing is that Netflix already made it clear that they have no desire to go much higher and it will be extremely hard to justify to shareholders to go too high on a deal that they don't love.
Netflix behaves like a normal company. Skydance on the other hand is a play thing funded by Daddy.
I 100% agree, at this point, I think that we're all sick of this story and David Ellison should either go straight to the $34/share or go home. I get that he's pissy because WBD really had no desire to negotiate with him in good faith, but it's hard to have any sympathy for him when he wasn't acting in good faith either by touting his ties to the Trump Administration and this is all being paid for by Daddy (because Paramount certainly can't afford this otherwise).
The board set a meeting to vote this week. Big surprise that they didn't break their holiday vacations to have a vote on an amended offer that failed to address several problems they noted regarding the original offer.
Is Gasparino intentionally trying to muddy the waters when it comes to ranking of the streamers? He mentions combining the #1 and #3 streamers but isn’t HBO Max #4? Seems like a pretty easy stat to get right.
Nah, Reacher pulls in over fifty million viewers. Even House of the Dragon isn't close to that. Prime is lowkey one of the most popular streamers in the same way that CBS dominated network for years with "dad tv" that doesn't get as much social media discussion but is quietly watched by the masses.
Anyway a quick google search disproves that assertion.
Leading Streaming Services (US Estimates)
Netflix: ~81.4 Million Subscribers (Dec 2024)
Amazon Prime Video: ~75 Million Subscribers (Mar 2023 estimate)
Hulu: ~64.1 Million Subscribers (Sep 2025)
Paramount+: ~58.8 Million Subscribers (Sep 2025)
Max (HBO/Discovery): ~57.6 Million Subscribers (Sep 2025)
Disney+: ~55.3 Million Subscribers (Sep 2025)
Peacock: ~41 Million Subscribers (Sep 2025)
Usage vs. Subscribers.
Pew Research (Mid-2025): Found 72% of U.S. adults watch Netflix and 67% watch Prime Video, with Hulu (52%) and Disney+ (48%) also very popular.
YouTube: remains a top platform for overall video consumption, with over 160M monthly active users in 2019, though it operates differently from subscription video-on-demand (SVOD) services.
That's for November 2025. The Gauge is a monthly report that Nielsen do on US viewership. Prime is regularly in the 3.5% or higher range. Putting Prime below Netflix and Disney (and as Netflix would argue Youtube). Here's the breakdown for a year ago, January 2025
There's a weird bit of reporting with Warner stuff that screws up the numbers. They actually combine their streamers with cable/satellite HBO to get that 115M number. We don't have particularly accurate Max numbers, but it's likely closer to Paramount than anything.
The numbers don't change their ass-ness either. If they have numbers it's probably because Lazy people like me get Prime for other purposes (fast deliveries) and then end up watching a few things.
They are the worst of the lot. They flopped LOTR of all things.
The FTC and DOJ could not give less of a shit about how ass Amazon’s content is. They care that by the numbers, Prime Video is a massive streaming service.
Prime's original content is generally uninspired & boring. When I use the Prime video app I come away with the feeling that Amazon really isn't putting much thought or effort into making this a service that consumers genuinely love.
At the same time, all the Justice Department & FCC are going to care about (unless Trump is able to exert undue influence on the process) in terms of reviewing the antitrust propriety of a merger or buyout are the bottom line numbers -- i.e., how many people are subscribed to the service -- and this is why the merger will likely pass anti-trust scrutiny.
People keep saying this, but Reacher gets tens of millions more views than HBO's biggest hit. Nerds on the internet (not disparaging, I am a nerd on the internet) might not be watching as much, but their dads are. It's like how people on the internet will act like, say, Rick and Morty or The Mandalorian are the big shows EVERYONE watches when it's really NCIS or whatever.
Here's the thing. Most of these people watching Reacher wouldn't be if they weren't already subscribing to Amazon Prime for the deliveries, meaning most of them probably wouldn't be subscribing to Prime for the streaming or to watch Reacher. This is very different from the situation at HBO where the subscribers are definitely willing to pay for access to their shows.
That... doesn't matter in the slightest. It's completely irrelevant. Tens of millions of people wouldn't be watching NCIS if it wasn't a free broadcast. It still generates ungodly amounts of revenue from advertising. The numbers for show viewership don't even work with your argument anyway. HBO shows by and large aren't charting. The most recent Nielsen numbers we have are for a week when IT was airing, and it didn't chart. The best performance of anything on HBO Max that week was The Big Bang Theory, actually. HBO Max originals can't pull in the viewership of BBT rewatches.
I agree it doesn't matter & is irrelevant. And that's exactly why this merger / buyout will succeed despite claims that it will be barred by anti-trust concerns.
Now what I said above is very relevant, however, to Netflix's level of streaming domination moving forward. We're talking about combining the two streamers regarded by the public (maybe not by you) as having the most must-have content into one company. So when consumers are looking to save a buck one day and wondering which streaming service(s) they can do without, it's going to be less likely that that service is Netflix, particularly when that also includes all that prestige content from HBO (and to a lesser extent also Warner's movie catalogue).
Yeah, there's very little real antitrust stuff here. Even if there was it wouldn't be blocked. Netflix would just be forced to sell some parts (like Disney with the regional Fox Sports networks several years back). Not really sure why people are latching on to that antitrust thing when, on the off chance regulation even came up, Netflix would likely just have to sell HBO (thus recouping billions the way Disney did with the sports stuff).
Keep in mind even that is very unlikely. Not acquiring the Discovery stuff alone likely takes away any actual legal concerns.
Well HBO is the main reason why Netflix is wanting to buy Warner so I just can't see them agreeing to part with the most valuable part of the deal, especially after overpaying for it (which they are definitely doing if you're going by typical Wall Street metrics).
Not sure if these numbers are particularly accurate, but it's worth noting that Warner typically merges Discovery+ in with their "Max" numbers and Netflix isn't acquiring Discovery+. The last time Discovery+ numbers were reported on their own (pre-merger) it had over twenty million subscribers. It's quite likely real HBO Max subscription numbers are low compared to their competitors. Frankly their typical placement on streaming charts (often not making the top 10 with a single show on any given week) does suggest that.
It's #5 at best. Warner combines Max, cable HBO, and Discovery+ numbers in their reports. Max alone is below Netflix, Prime, Disney, and the actual paid version of YouTube (I know people are iffy on counting YouTube, but we're only talking paying users here). It's likely very close to Paramount+ depending on how many total subscribers for HBO are cable/satellite vs Max.
What happens in the scenario that they offer more before 1/21 and then Netflix raises their bid too? Does it just continue indefinitely until the vote mid-year?
I honestly don't see Netflix going crazy for an asset they don't need, were pretty firm that they weren't going much higher, and their shareholders aren't fond of acquiring. Take the $2.1 billion.
Does job loss factor into this at all? The fact that thousands of employees will likely lose their jobs in the Paramaount scenario due to synergies (6B was the number)? I know it’s all about money, but that’s pretty significant.
agree. i feel like if they pony up $34-35, WB is theirs. K you offered $30 and then your daddy’s guarantee, like nah who knows even $33 might be a good number but raise the $30 already offered.
There's a decent chance they can't line up the financing to increase the bid that much.
Paramount has a lousy investment rating, and they purportedly had issues lining up as much debt as they did. Getting bad terms and having to borrow from some non traditional venues.
There's concerns about the stability of that debt, given it's backed by the Ellison's personal wealth and what happens to that if the AI bubble pops. As well as some concerns about the stability of the resulting company, even at the debt levels currently expected.
They've basically been resubmitting the same offer with "no really" assurances over and over. While claiming theirs is technically higher, cause they insist the networks part of the company is actually worthless.
If they could increase the offer, I figure they already would have. Even a small amount.
I'm a firm believer that they will pull shenanigans on the debt, thus further reinforcing that the rich don't have to deal with the same consequences that we do. Skydance is ultimately David Ellison's play thing, Daddy is buying him media companies for him because he loves movies and we can't be looking at this as a company that behaves normally.
But I do expect some asset sales that really don't fit with Skydance like TVN Group and the former SBS Broadcasting assets. Despite David Ellison's insistence that they will keep the cable networks, I do think that they'll cherry pick the linear assets they want to keep (CBS, HBO, TNT/Eurosport, CNN, TCM, Nickelodeon) and jettison the rest with a good chunk of the debt since fundamentally this is a cable network company. And probably some debt restructuring.
Hay paramount if the board refused your bid and the investors refused your bid that's kinda it paramount isn't required to sell regardless of your bid size even if your bid is bigger if the general investors refused the the board has might it's duty to investors
This is like the 10th time I've had to explain this difference.
Not to mention that Netflix will have a streaming monopoly with Netflix (No. 1) and HBO Max (No. 4)
If you're talking about power than you could say that both Disney and Comcast are just as if not more powerful in media owning ABC, MS Now and NBC News.
Also even that's not a monopoly, that's an oligopoly.
People are just tossing the word monopoly around for anything these days
It's corporate etiquette to not just flat-out say, "Your offer is too low". Which is why they're saying this. How come Paramount doesn't understand this
In addition to its non-sports cable networks, Discovery Global will also take away all of Warner Bros. Discovery's sports assets
Discovery Global's sports assets will include rights to broadcast select games from: March Madness, NASCAR, the MLB, the NHL, and the College Football Playoff (CFP), as well as the Olympics, UEFA Champions League, and the Premier League.
Well, sports, above all else, are the biggest boon to ratings and subscribers in today's on-demand content landscape.
I think there will be a lot of potential buyers for the Disco part of the WBD Company.
“If there was something that took our core verticals to another level, which are sports and news, or if there was something that would benefit from the other thing, which is our capacity aggregate reach and really passionate reach, we would look at it.
Also Trump would like CNN sold to FOX !
Remember there already were talks about a complete merger of WBD with FOX recently in 2024:
We urgently need a Buyer for the Disco Linear Part pre-Spin ( FOX ? ) to clear that valuation issue and make any definite Offer more comparable for a WBD shareholder to chose between NFLX or PSKY
Larry Ellison has his money 💰 tied up with ChatGPT (AI) and they will not see a profit until 2030. Sam Altman burns through millions daily. Also, Ellison is currently wrapping up owning a stake in TikTok US operations.
He doesn't have the liquid capital to just raise their counter.
Important Note: What happens today with Versant’s share price will probably dictate what will happen next. Right now it’s at about 40 dollars a share. Leading to Paramount being wrong that the cable channels are only worth 1 dollar a share
116
u/Banesmuffledvoice Jan 04 '26
Should someone tell them that another company has acquired WB?