4 ms·

I really don’t understand this comment. You think the Twitter legal team are so dumb to not have negotiated an agreement in their own favour?

ProfessorLayton 4y ago
I don't mean to be snarky but we're talking about the same company that shut down Vine and let TikTok happen. Their decision making has been baffling.
- vore 4y ago
  You're making a category error. The legal team is not the product team.
- rchaud 4y ago
  And Tesla has recalled nearly half a million cars mfg between 2017-20[0]. That's a solid percentage of all the cars they've manufactured during that time. I shudder to ask what you think of its leadership. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/30/tesla-recalls-475000-model-3-model-s-electric-cars-over-safety-issues.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/30/tesla-recalls-475000-model-3...
  - spiderice 4y ago
    What? How is Tesla's car quality relevant to this conversation? You're really stretching here.
dragontamer 4y ago
> I really don’t understand this comment. You think the Twitter legal team are so dumb to not have negotiated an agreement in their own favour? Oh, the agreement is absolutely in Twitter's favor if Musk pulls out of the deal. But that doesn't mean *suing Musk* to complete the deal is actually their best move. As usual, the best move is probably some kind of plea-agreement (or starting to sue to get into the position of a plea-bargain), where the details are figured out. --------- There's really no "political benefit" to forcing Elon Musk to become the new owner of Twitter. There's a lot of room for creativity here. Maybe Twitter manages to extract a $2 billion concession or $5 billion concession from Musk (rather than the limited $1 Billion in the deal, since that only applies to very restrictive terms) Or maybe Twitter just bans Elon Musk from their platform for wanton trolling and collects the $1 Billion. Who knows? Just because Twitter's Board is legally allowed to do X, doesn't mean that they will do X. They will use X to threaten Musk into doing Y (and Y is what they really want). I'm not sitting in Twitter's Board of Directors right now, I don't know what their "Plan Y" is. But I have reason to believe that X (ie: forcing Musk to buy Twitter at $54.20) isn't in their best interest.
- sulam 4y ago
  How about the obvious fact that Twitter is not currently worth $54.20/share? It's probably worth half of that if it weren't for the offer, given this week's climate. Surely it's at least partly their responsibility to negotiate the best financial outcome for the shareholders.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    > How about the obvious fact that Twitter is not currently worth $54.20/share? Shame on Musk for writing $54.20 into the contract then. Just because the value of something changed after you wrote the contract doesn't mean that you can break the contract unilaterally. Musk could have gotten around this with an all-stock deal (ex: I'll give the Twitter board 100,000 shares of TSLA or whatever), or other ways to write the contract without setting a particular dollar amount. But Musk wrote $54.20 and signed it. And the contract even says the Twitter Board can force Elon Musk to buy Twitter and finish the deal at $54.20. So they made it crystal clear to Musk (and his lawyers) that the $54.20 price points stays, no matter how Twitter's price changes over the next weeks.
    - HWR_14 4y ago
      But 54.20 ends in 420, which means weed. Musk loves to memelord. I think offering a direct swap for his TSLA shares at 20:1 would have been a smart move. It would have cost him like 5% of TSLA, which is a lot but still would have left him with the same % that Bezos has of AMZN
      - myko 4y ago
        TSLA is way over valued at the moment. That would be a big risk compared to cash in hand.
        HWR_14 4y ago
        To accept it, yes. But it avoids the macroeconomic questions and would have been a good idea for Musk to offer

ProfessorLayton 4y ago

I don't mean to be snarky but we're talking about the same company that shut down Vine and let TikTok happen. Their decision making has been baffling.

vore 4y ago
You're making a category error. The legal team is not the product team.
rchaud 4y ago
And Tesla has recalled nearly half a million cars mfg between 2017-20[0]. That's a solid percentage of all the cars they've manufactured during that time. I shudder to ask what you think of its leadership. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/30/tesla-recalls-475000-model-3-model-s-electric-cars-over-safety-issues.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/30/tesla-recalls-475000-model-3...
- spiderice 4y ago
  What? How is Tesla's car quality relevant to this conversation? You're really stretching here.

dragontamer 4y ago

> I really don’t understand this comment. You think the Twitter legal team are so dumb to not have negotiated an agreement in their own favour? Oh, the agreement is absolutely in Twitter's favor if Musk pulls out of the deal. But that doesn't mean *suing Musk* to complete the deal is actually their best move. As usual, the best move is probably some kind of plea-agreement (or starting to sue to get into the position of a plea-bargain), where the details are figured out. --------- There's really no "political benefit" to forcing Elon Musk to become the new owner of Twitter. There's a lot of room for creativity here. Maybe Twitter manages to extract a $2 billion concession or $5 billion concession from Musk (rather than the limited $1 Billion in the deal, since that only applies to very restrictive terms) Or maybe Twitter just bans Elon Musk from their platform for wanton trolling and collects the $1 Billion. Who knows? Just because Twitter's Board is legally allowed to do X, doesn't mean that they will do X. They will use X to threaten Musk into doing Y (and Y is what they really want). I'm not sitting in Twitter's Board of Directors right now, I don't know what their "Plan Y" is. But I have reason to believe that X (ie: forcing Musk to buy Twitter at $54.20) isn't in their best interest.

sulam 4y ago
How about the obvious fact that Twitter is not currently worth $54.20/share? It's probably worth half of that if it weren't for the offer, given this week's climate. Surely it's at least partly their responsibility to negotiate the best financial outcome for the shareholders.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  > How about the obvious fact that Twitter is not currently worth $54.20/share? Shame on Musk for writing $54.20 into the contract then. Just because the value of something changed after you wrote the contract doesn't mean that you can break the contract unilaterally. Musk could have gotten around this with an all-stock deal (ex: I'll give the Twitter board 100,000 shares of TSLA or whatever), or other ways to write the contract without setting a particular dollar amount. But Musk wrote $54.20 and signed it. And the contract even says the Twitter Board can force Elon Musk to buy Twitter and finish the deal at $54.20. So they made it crystal clear to Musk (and his lawyers) that the $54.20 price points stays, no matter how Twitter's price changes over the next weeks.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    But 54.20 ends in 420, which means weed. Musk loves to memelord. I think offering a direct swap for his TSLA shares at 20:1 would have been a smart move. It would have cost him like 5% of TSLA, which is a lot but still would have left him with the same % that Bezos has of AMZN
    - myko 4y ago
      TSLA is way over valued at the moment. That would be a big risk compared to cash in hand.
      - HWR_14 4y ago
        To accept it, yes. But it avoids the macroeconomic questions and would have been a good idea for Musk to offer