Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

WR810 t1_j9s06l1 wrote

AT&T already wasn't profitable with Warner Brothers.

5

vitorgrs t1_j9s203n wrote

Yes, and I never said otherwise... Read again.

0

WR810 t1_j9sabtx wrote

>Read again.

What you did say was "you now need to make the new company profitable" as if Warner Brothers' mismanagement were substitutable. If Discovery hadn't purchased Warner Brothers then AT&T would have had to make similar cuts at some point.

3

vitorgrs t1_j9safz1 wrote

Again, I never said they wouldn't need that. I'm saying Discovery created a even BIGGER problem, because they literally created 30bi more in debt. It's that simple actually.

0

WR810 t1_j9sbqo7 wrote

>It's that simple actually.

Again, I'm telling you that it's not.

Discovery didn't create billions in debt. That debt existed on a AT&T balance sheet from well before the merger. Discovery just moved that debt from AT&T's balance sheet to their balance sheet in return for Warner Brothers (basically). The liabilities attached to Warner Brothers were nothing new.

As per my second comment we would see cuts and reductions in Warner Brothers if AT&T sold or not because AT&T was in debt and because AT&T mismanaged Warner Brothers.

3