4 ms·

It was $500 million total including $100m in cash -- http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/11/twitter-rejects-500-million-takeover-offer-from-facebook http://www.all

by brianr 18y ago

It was $500 million total including $100m in cash -- http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/11/twitter-rejects-500-million-takeover-offer-from-facebook http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/11/twitter-rejects-500-mill...

ojbyrne 18y ago
$100 million in cash? Passing that up looks pretty dumb right now.
- nazgulnarsil 18y ago
  I guess running the company is more fun than doing whatever you want everyday for the rest of your life. edit:the alley insider article implies that the deal was ALL facebook stock. I would probably turn that down too and wait for a non toilet-paper offer. I mean how much can you sell facebook stock for? Are there any buyers?
  - ojbyrne 18y ago
    Actually that article has an update from thedeal.com saying that $100 million of the offer was cash. It's right at the top.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  How does that look dumb if they're raising at a $250m valuation? Seems smart to me. That article made it seem like it was about $150m (at the more sane $5b Facebook valuation) stock only. I wouldn't take that if I owned Twitter.
  - axod 18y ago
    Surely a valuation is meaningless until you are able to actually have a liquidity event. If it was me, I'd recognize that the Twitter hype is probably peaking about now, and it's a good time to quit and take some cash.
    - nazgulnarsil 18y ago
      it always looks like it's peaking if your growth is hyperbolic. whether or not they're idiots or geniuses is determined by the market. but if I was running twitter I would certainly take $150 million in cash. If you still want to run a company well now you have cash and a success under your belt. Funding should be an order of magnitude easier.
      - axod 18y ago
        "it always looks like it's peaking if your growth is hyperbolic." Sure, but the fact we're even discussing $250m valuation for a company whos only real worth seems to be its users and possible future profit, should be a good pointer that this is a peak. Much like Facebook peaked.
      - mattmaroon 18y ago
        Twitter's founders have already had a prior success. Funding is already easy for them. And if you would sell a company with that sort of traffic and growth for $150m, then I'm glad I'm not invested in it.
  - ojbyrne 18y ago
    a. It's a rumor. b. Even as a rumor, the deal isn't closed. c. The article mentions that they got a lot of "no"'s from people. If someone said "yes" it's likely the terms are going to be harsh.
- pjhyett 18y ago
  Evan Williams already sold Blogger to Google pre-IPO, so I don't blame him for seeing how big he can make Twitter now that he has breathing room. You normally don't create another startup after becoming wealthy just to become more wealthy.
  - lyime 18y ago
    You'd be surprised, because thats exactly what serial entrepreneurs do.
    - pjhyett 18y ago
      There's a difference, though, between doing it just for the money and doing it for the love of the game which could also lead to more money.

by brianr 18y ago

ojbyrne 18y ago

$100 million in cash? Passing that up looks pretty dumb right now.

nazgulnarsil 18y ago
I guess running the company is more fun than doing whatever you want everyday for the rest of your life. edit:the alley insider article implies that the deal was ALL facebook stock. I would probably turn that down too and wait for a non toilet-paper offer. I mean how much can you sell facebook stock for? Are there any buyers?
- ojbyrne 18y ago
  Actually that article has an update from thedeal.com saying that $100 million of the offer was cash. It's right at the top.
mattmaroon 18y ago
How does that look dumb if they're raising at a $250m valuation? Seems smart to me. That article made it seem like it was about $150m (at the more sane $5b Facebook valuation) stock only. I wouldn't take that if I owned Twitter.
- axod 18y ago
  Surely a valuation is meaningless until you are able to actually have a liquidity event. If it was me, I'd recognize that the Twitter hype is probably peaking about now, and it's a good time to quit and take some cash.
  - nazgulnarsil 18y ago
    it always looks like it's peaking if your growth is hyperbolic. whether or not they're idiots or geniuses is determined by the market. but if I was running twitter I would certainly take $150 million in cash. If you still want to run a company well now you have cash and a success under your belt. Funding should be an order of magnitude easier.
    - axod 18y ago
      "it always looks like it's peaking if your growth is hyperbolic." Sure, but the fact we're even discussing $250m valuation for a company whos only real worth seems to be its users and possible future profit, should be a good pointer that this is a peak. Much like Facebook peaked.
    - mattmaroon 18y ago
      Twitter's founders have already had a prior success. Funding is already easy for them. And if you would sell a company with that sort of traffic and growth for $150m, then I'm glad I'm not invested in it.
- ojbyrne 18y ago
  a. It's a rumor. b. Even as a rumor, the deal isn't closed. c. The article mentions that they got a lot of "no"'s from people. If someone said "yes" it's likely the terms are going to be harsh.
pjhyett 18y ago
Evan Williams already sold Blogger to Google pre-IPO, so I don't blame him for seeing how big he can make Twitter now that he has breathing room. You normally don't create another startup after becoming wealthy just to become more wealthy.
- lyime 18y ago
  You'd be surprised, because thats exactly what serial entrepreneurs do.
  - pjhyett 18y ago
    There's a difference, though, between doing it just for the money and doing it for the love of the game which could also lead to more money.