4 ms·
Put simply, the internet is wrong. FUAC's offer was all cash. The Onion offered less cash, but offered other incentives (AIUI, a share of whatever revenue they
by pdpi 2y ago
Put simply, the internet is wrong.
FUAC's offer was all cash. The Onion offered less cash, but offered other incentives (AIUI, a share of whatever revenue they make from Infowars in the future). Saying that The Onion's bid was lower requires you to put a dollar value on those other incentives. The fact that the two creditors (read: victims' families) that would benefit from those incentives were willing to sacrifice some of the debt they were owed so they could benefit from those incentives suggests that at least _they_ think those incentives were worth more than the cash upfront, and the amount of debt they were willing to sacrifice gives you an implicit baseline for that dollar value.
Given the site we're on: it's like saying that an offer with a lower base salary but higher equity is automatically a worse offer than a bigger salary with no stock.
- sidewndr46 2y agoThe idea that Global Tetrahedron would generate revenue from InfoWars is a farce. Jones is InfoWars. Any market value assigned to InfoWars without Jones explicitly involvement is a farce. Even a non bankruptcy sale of InfoWars would require him to participate in the business for an extended period of time. Even then, it'd just be some investor bankrolling Jones.
- pdpi 2y agoThat might or might not be true. If Infowars is _that_ worthless without Jones, then _any_ offer is a farce and the whole auction is pointless.
- lupusreal 2y ago> If Infowars is _that_ worthless without Jones, then _any_ offer is a farce That doesn't make sense. A genuine offer for an unprofitable thing could be made. That's not farcical, just a bad investment.
- pdpi 2y agoYes, that's precisely what I mean. It might or might not be a bad bet, but the Sandy Hook families are just as entitled to take that bet as anybody else. The idea that it's farcical to entertain any offer that doesn't involve putting Jones back in charge leads you down a really weird road.
- sidewndr46 2y agoNow that you say it that way, it does make some kind of sense.
- dllthomas 2y agoThat seems true for any attempt to continue using the IP for the same thing. Turning it into a parody of that thing might have an audience (and therefore produce ad revenue), would not seem to need Jones involved, and be something for which Global Tetrahedron seems well resourced.
- sidewndr46 2y agoI thought that too, but Global Tetrahedron could just found 'InfooWars' as a satire site without Jones estate involvement at all.
- vasco 2y ago> a share of whatever revenue they make from Infowars in the future What is that realistically? They said they will turn it into gun safety information. How does a gun safety information site make money out of an audience of people expecting a guy shouting about conspiracy theories?
- pdpi 2y agoI don't know what it is. It's an investment, it carries risks with it. That said, if I were one of the Sandy Hook families, turning Infowars into a gun safety site would hold more value than any money you could pay me. Classic case of "maximising shareholder value" not being the same as "maximising revenue".
- vidarh 2y agoWhat that is realistically is irrelevant to the value to the bankruptcy estate - the value to the estate is the amount of debt those creditors are willing to forgive in return for those risks.