• Profile logout login

#spinoffs

Gawker

Share Cancel
   
Upload an image | Add an image URL
×

logging in
  • FAQ. Include # before tag:
  • #tips,
  • #stalker,
  • #opencaption,
  • #internalmemos,
  • etc.

New York, 7:10 PM
Mon Nov 9
56 posts in the last 24 hours

Team

Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138

Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email

West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email

Contributing Editors:

Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email

Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email

Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email

Investigations:
John Cook | Email

Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email

Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email

Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email

SUBSCRIBE TO Gawker RSS

New: Breaking news and daily top stories via email
4260 Subscribers
Gawker
  • posts about #spinoffs more →

    Why Delay AOL's Mass Layoffs?

    Finally the Most Interesting Part of Project Runway: The Models

    Maxim Sure One of These Spinoffs Will Work

    The AOL-Time Warner Saga Bookends One Sorry Decade

    Spinning Off Into Nothing

    Like, Omigawd! XOXO, Valley Girl

    'Hey Zack, It's Me, Kelly. Kelly Kapowski From Bayside.'

    Even eBay wishes PayPal weren't part of eBay now

    Time Warner formally spins off Time Warner Cable
  • Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.
    Dsmvwl  Admin  Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×
    Image of Rock tha Hizzee Rock tha Hizzee
    10/05/09

    In reply to Why Delay AOL's Mass Layoffs?
    It takes a long time to get all those layoff CDs printed and mailed out.
     Reply
    Magister promoted this comment Rock tha Hizzee was starred Rock tha Hizzee was unstarred
    Image of FormerEnglishMajor FormerEnglishMajor
    10/05/09

    In reply to Why Delay AOL's Mass Layoffs?
    Well, as an investor-type, I can tell you that the reason these things are postponed is so that, when Newco is public, they can make this really positive-sounding announcement that there will be cost cuts (downsizing), and all the sell-side analysts will run to their models and raise their earnings targets because hey! a one-time charge for layoffs doesn't flow through your "normalized" earnings-per-share, but the benefits over time do.

    So I'd say it's a bit of window-dressing and smoke and mirrors, as these spinoffs usually are.
     Reply
    FormerEnglishMajor was starred FormerEnglishMajor was unstarred
    Image of daveyjonesisdead daveyjonesisdead
    10/05/09

    @FormerEnglishMajor: and their year over year comparisons next year will be great because the first year will be burdened by the charge, right? so they'll make it look like, unburdened of Time Warner, they were finally able to unlock value.
     Reply
    Richard Rushfield promoted this comment daveyjonesisdead was starred daveyjonesisdead was unstarred
    Image of FormerEnglishMajor FormerEnglishMajor
    10/05/09

    @daveyjonesisdead: Yes. Not making the announcement isn't to prevent anything on Time Warner's part, but to put the finger on the scale on AOL's behalf. AOL doesn't have subscriber growth (quite the opposite), so the only way they can show earnings growth is by cutting costs, hard. Companies like Time Warner are "on the hook" for a bit after the spinoff (you don't want people suing you for fraudulent conveyance), so they try to save all the good news for the spinoff until after the company is on its own.
     Reply
    FormerEnglishMajor was starred FormerEnglishMajor was unstarred
    Image of FormerEnglishMajor FormerEnglishMajor
    10/05/09

    @daveyjonesisdead: Yay daveyjones for getting starred!
     Reply
    FormerEnglishMajor was starred FormerEnglishMajor was unstarred
    Image of Unsolicited Advice Unsolicited Advice
    10/05/09

    In reply to Why Delay AOL's Mass Layoffs?
    Time Warner doesn't want to compensate exiting employees. AOL can't afford a "deep restructuring" to be taking place during the sales process for the IPO to investors. Most importantly, I'd cynically state that the turd in the hand is worth way less than the birds in the bush here and that the sales process isn't exactly employing a frank appraisal of the company's future prospects.
     Reply
    Unsolicited Advice was starred Unsolicited Advice was unstarred
    Image of unclevanya unclevanya
    07/17/09

    In reply to Finally the Most Interesting Part of Project Runway: The Models
    Hey! This is going to cut into one of my Will & Graces!

    I knew Lifetime hated the gays!
     Reply
    unclevanya was starred unclevanya was unstarred
    Image of ellagood ellagood
    07/16/09

    In reply to Finally the Most Interesting Part of Project Runway: The Models
    models of the runway? i don't want to watch a show about my huggable hangers.
     Reply
    ellagood was starred ellagood was unstarred
    Image of Lizawithazee Lizawithazee
    07/16/09

    In reply to Finally the Most Interesting Part of Project Runway: The Models
    If it makes Tim Gunn want to lose it, I don't like it either
     Reply
    Lizawithazee was starred Lizawithazee was unstarred
    Image of PauletteLentulus PauletteLentulus
    07/16/09

    In reply to Finally the Most Interesting Part of Project Runway: The Models
    It will suck if I have to read the live blog upside down and backwards.
     Reply
    MisterHippity promoted this comment PauletteLentulus was starred PauletteLentulus was unstarred
    Image of MisterHippity MisterHippity
    07/17/09

    @PauletteLentulus: Just backwards. But you'll bet used to it.

    (Or maybe we can all persuade Gawker to bring back the "oldest first" viewing option by then.)
     Reply
    MisterHippity was starred MisterHippity was unstarred
    Image of itmustbeken itmustbeken
    07/16/09

    In reply to Finally the Most Interesting Part of Project Runway: The Models
    'I saw you eyeing my designer the other day.."
    Did she mean to say 'ass' instead of 'designer'. I often confuse those two things as well.
     Reply
    Edited by itmustbeken at 07/16/09 7:27 PM itmustbeken was starred itmustbeken was unstarred
    Image of MisterHippity MisterHippity
    07/16/09

    In reply to Finally the Most Interesting Part of Project Runway: The Models
    You know what WON'T suck? Live-blogging Project Runway!

    New season starts August 20 - just five short weeks away. Mark your calendars!
     Reply
    MisterHippity was starred MisterHippity was unstarred
    Image of The Glad Family of Products The Glad Family of Products
    07/16/09

    In reply to Finally the Most Interesting Part of Project Runway: The Models
    Nobody cares about the models.

    You know that part on PR when they "eliminate" one of the models, and everyone acts sad about it? They are pretending. Nobody cares.
     Reply
    Edited by The Glad Family of Products at 07/16/09 6:35 PM The Glad Family of Products was starred The Glad Family of Products was unstarred
    Image of If_I_Had_a_Poodle If_I_Had_a_Poodle
    07/16/09

    In reply to Finally the Most Interesting Part of Project Runway: The Models
    kind of like looking at mcdonald's from the livestock's point of view ... they're pretty much just there to be processed, and while we should treat them kindly, they don't really have much to say
     Reply
    If_I_Had_a_Poodle was starred If_I_Had_a_Poodle was unstarred
    Image of Spirit Fingers Spirit Fingers
    07/16/09

    In reply to Finally the Most Interesting Part of Project Runway: The Models
    I'm confused as both Courage Under Fire and Vantage Point were extremely awful movies. It didn't hurt Denzel much, but Meg Ryan ended up living as a reclusive sea monster until her face could be sufficiently turned to stone, which has happened, and showcased in some recent movie about menopause and manless dowagers in Connecticut, which also must have been the reason for her putting crazy-town earwigs in Dennis Quaid, since they were once married and both made bad movies about time-tracking. That's probably mostly not a coincidence.

    Anyhoo, was Lifetime the only choice for Project Runway? What, was AMC too busy with their 60's show to put in a decent bid for fashion fabulousness?
     Reply
    Spirit Fingers was starred Spirit Fingers was unstarred
    Image of m4ximusprim3 m4ximusprim3
    07/16/09

    In reply to Finally the Most Interesting Part of Project Runway: The Models
    While I've been much maligned in the past for stating that I enjoyed the "watching the models" part of project runway more than the "watching the bitchy gay people make clothes" part, I'm sensing total flop.
     Reply
    m4ximusprim3 was starred m4ximusprim3 was unstarred
    Image of Motoko Kusanagi Motoko Kusanagi
    07/16/09

    In reply to Finally the Most Interesting Part of Project Runway: The Models
    Remember when nutty Morgan missed all her fittings, had random breakdowns, and slept with all my friends?

    Yeah, those were the days in PR history...
     Reply
    Motoko Kusanagi was starred Motoko Kusanagi was unstarred
    Image of Smitros Smitros
    06/19/09

    In reply to Maxim Sure One of These Spinoffs Will Work
    Sponsors for the TV show


    1. Vaseline
    2. Wesson
    3. Johnson's Baby Oil
    4. Jergens

     Reply
    Smitros was starred Smitros was unstarred
    Earlier threads | All threads | Show hidden threads | Show featured threads only | Start a new discussion

Login

Enter your username and password.

Please enter a username.
Please enter your password.
logging in
Login via Facebook | Sign Up | Forgot Password?

Reset Password

Please enter your email address to have your password reset.

Please enter your email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
requesting password reset

Register

Registering will give you a user profile and the ability to add other users as friends. To become a commenter, however, you need to audition.

Want to know more? Consult the Comment FAQ and legal terms.

Please enter a username.
Please enter a password.
Please confirm your password.
Passwords are not identical.
Please enter a valid email address.
registration sent, waiting for reply

Submit Your Comment

You don't need to login to comment. Just enter your email address below.

See how your address will be displayed in the Comment FAQ.

Please enter a valid email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
logging in

Login with your Facebook or Gawker account.

Sign up here.



  • Archives
  • About
  • Advertising
  • Legal
  • Help
  • Report a Bug
  • FAQ
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.