Ticketmaster and Live nation Merger approved

[PA PAR8 HED]

Ticketmaster is the biggest US concert and event ticket service; Live Nation (includes Philadelphia's former Electric Factory Concerts) is the biggest concert promoter. Deal foes fear that their combination would drive ticket prices and fees outrageously higher than they already are.

The government's merger conditions: Ticketmaster must divest its Paciolan large-venue ticketing service, selling it to Philly-based Comcast-Spectacor ; and it must license Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG), Ticketmaster's biggest customer, to use Ticketmaster's sales system; and it must agree to not engage in "anti-competitive behavior."

Varney says this will ensure "increased competition" between the three companies and "a lot of innovation," instead of creating the monopoly sports- and concert-goers feared...

Will tickets be even harder to get this summer?

[HD18JBGuy]

Never had a problem getting them in the past. Not sure why a merger would make them tougher to procure. If anything, it might make it easier given the common sharing of information that didn't exist between the two.

[C-Dawg]

my gut tells me this isn't a good thing

[Reefdiver]

my gut tells me this isn't a good thing

Yep.....same here.

[HD18JBGuy]

But why? No sure what the big deal is and why people think it is always a "bad idea".

Many mergers have proven to add value to their customer base and their shareholders and, in the long run, keep prices stable and more affordable. Just like any merger, the pre and post activities will be closely monitored for years to come to ensure that they are engaging in fair business practices and are compliant with various anti-trust laws.

I welcome it.

[spucketts]

Yeah, just like allowing banks to merge into a few mega banks has been benificial to the consumer, and credit card companies, and airlines, and utilities, satellite radio.....less competition equals the consumer taking it square in the butt.

[C-Dawg]

Yeah, just like allowing banks to merge into a few mega banks has been benificial to the consumer, and credit card companies, and airlines, and utilities, satellite radio.....less competition equals the consumer taking it square in the butt.

Yep...Ticketb@stard and Vilenation have already been caught screwing the public independently, so it's not like they already have a great reputation....now let them join forces We're gonna get f$*#@ ed.

[Tropic_Al]

Last year I got screwed by TM for Camden pit seats. Wound up going through LN & got the best seats we ever had. 2nd row dead center.
Not looking forward to having deal w/a TM monster.

[chippewa]

Yeah, just like allowing banks to merge into a few mega banks has been benificial to the consumer, and credit card companies, and airlines, and utilities, satellite radio.....less competition equals the consumer taking it square in the butt.

Yep...Ticketb@stard and Vilenation have already been caught screwing the public independently, so it's not like they already have a great reputation....now let them join forces We're gonna get f$*#@ ed.

Flash forward a few years when TicketMaster becomes "too big to fail"

On the bright side, now I'll only have one company that raises my blood pressure instead of two.

[HD18JBGuy]

In case you don't read the WSJ here is an interesting article about the deal, which can also be found in section B1 of the newspaper. Kind of interesting that the article points out some of the exact same points that I made yesterday.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142 ... _section_b

As I said, I welcome the merger and beleive, just like many mergers in the past, the outcome will be to the benefit of all stakeholders. I find it amusing when people automatically dismiss the idea that the result may provide direct benefits to them, and base their point of view soley on their opinion.

Could it turn for the worse...sure, but generally speaking, M&A activity ends up being successful and results in greater long-term benefits for consumers, the companies, and shareholders alike.

[RinglingRingling]

But why? No sure what the big deal is and why people think it is always a "bad idea".

Many mergers have proven to add value to their customer base and their shareholders and, in the long run, keep prices stable and more affordable. Just like any merger, the pre and post activities will be closely monitored for years to come to ensure that they are engaging in fair business practices and are compliant with various anti-trust laws.

I welcome it.

put down the crack pipe.... or at least try not to blaze up and then post. It doesn't work.

name 4 mergers that have kept prices stable AND affordable? usually mergers of many smaller players into a few large results in collusion and price-fixing. Assumptions of efficiency benefits are just that. Sure, you weed out the redundant population in both companies' AP/AR departments, HR depts, and the like.. but the idea like that sold to promote the consolidation of the Pennsylvania and the New York Central RRs ultimately failed because of the cost of standarizing equipment across both units wiped out any cost savings from eliminated redundant jobs.

Sure, the artists might not get the big money that drove ticket prices up to stupid.. like McCartney and the Stones were getting for their half-a$$ed tours of late; but the savings aren't going to get passed on to the consumer in the form of lower ticket prices.

[RinglingRingling]

In case you don't read the WSJ here is an interesting article about the deal, which can also be found in section B1 of the newspaper. Kind of interesting that the article points out some of the exact same points that I made yesterday.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142 ... _section_b

As I said, I welcome the merger and beleive, just like many mergers in the past, the outcome will be to the benefit of all stakeholders. I find it amusing when people automatically dismiss the idea that the result may provide direct benefits to them, and base their point of view soley on their opinion.

Could it turn for the worse...sure, but generally speaking, M&A activity ends up being successful and results in greater long-term benefits for consumers, the companies, and shareholders alike.

wow. you can speak MBA. Of course, the WSJ was pretty rah-rah for the banking mergers that created the "too big to fail" entities too. As much as the NYT is derided as a "member of the liberal main-stream media", the WSJ has to be viewed a bit coolly for their cheerleader efforts on the part of business. And the drawback to this merger is that once it is created, how do you break it up when the benefits to all stakeholders fail to materialize?

[HD18JBGuy]

But why? No sure what the big deal is and why people think it is always a "bad idea".

Many mergers have proven to add value to their customer base and their shareholders and, in the long run, keep prices stable and more affordable. Just like any merger, the pre and post activities will be closely monitored for years to come to ensure that they are engaging in fair business practices and are compliant with various anti-trust laws.

I welcome it.

put down the crack pipe.... or at least try not to blaze up and then post. It doesn't work.

WOW, very cordial of you.

I have seen and worked on some of the largest M&A deals around pal. I spent years working at one of the big four public accounting firms in their M&A groups. Simply because of the obnoxiously rude manner in which you responded to my post, I won't give you the satisfaction of answering any of your questions.

Good day to you. You should consider going back to school. Keep reading the NYT chief.

[RinglingRingling]

But why? No sure what the big deal is and why people think it is always a "bad idea".

Many mergers have proven to add value to their customer base and their shareholders and, in the long run, keep prices stable and more affordable. Just like any merger, the pre and post activities will be closely monitored for years to come to ensure that they are engaging in fair business practices and are compliant with various anti-trust laws.

I welcome it.

put down the crack pipe.... or at least try not to blaze up and then post. It doesn't work.

WOW, very cordial of you.

I have seen and worked on some of the largest M&A deals around pal. I spent years working at one of the big four public accounting firms in their M&A groups. Siimply because of the obnoxiously rude manner in which you responded to my post, I won't give you the satisfaction of answering any of your questions.

Good day to you. You should consider going back to school.

and how many of those are still operating, much less operating as planned? You're only as good as your last deal, so depuff the chest.

Given it's Chicago as your dateline.. Anderson or Ernst & Young?

and you are right.. I am just ignant. I'll leave discussions of high-finance to my "betters".

[pair8head]

[HD18JBGuy]

But why? No sure what the big deal is and why people think it is always a "bad idea".

Many mergers have proven to add value to their customer base and their shareholders and, in the long run, keep prices stable and more affordable. Just like any merger, the pre and post activities will be closely monitored for years to come to ensure that they are engaging in fair business practices and are compliant with various anti-trust laws.

I welcome it.

put down the crack pipe.... or at least try not to blaze up and then post. It doesn't work.

WOW, very cordial of you.

I have seen and worked on some of the largest M&A deals around pal. I spent years working at one of the big four public accounting firms in their M&A groups. Siimply because of the obnoxiously rude manner in which you responded to my post, I won't give you the satisfaction of answering any of your questions.

Good day to you. You should consider going back to school.

and how many of those are still operating, much less operating as planned? You're only as good as your last deal, so depuff the chest.

Given it's Chicago as your dateline.. Anderson or Ernst & Young?

and you are right.. I am just ignant. I'll leave discussions of high-finance to my "betters".

Plenty of them are operating and operating as planned.

Andersen? Pretty sure they have been non-existent for a while now.

[RinglingRingling]

But why? No sure what the big deal is and why people think it is always a "bad idea".

Many mergers have proven to add value to their customer base and their shareholders and, in the long run, keep prices stable and more affordable. Just like any merger, the pre and post activities will be closely monitored for years to come to ensure that they are engaging in fair business practices and are compliant with various anti-trust laws.

I welcome it.

put down the crack pipe.... or at least try not to blaze up and then post. It doesn't work.

WOW, very cordial of you.

I have seen and worked on some of the largest M&A deals around pal. I spent years working at one of the big four public accounting firms in their M&A groups. Siimply because of the obnoxiously rude manner in which you responded to my post, I won't give you the satisfaction of answering any of your questions.

Good day to you. You should consider going back to school.

and how many of those are still operating, much less operating as planned? You're only as good as your last deal, so depuff the chest.

Given it's Chicago as your dateline.. Anderson or Ernst & Young?

and you are right.. I am just ignant. I'll leave discussions of high-finance to my "betters".

Plenty of them are operating and operating as planned.

Andersen? Pretty sure they have been non-existent for a while now.

that ping.. magnetometer needle hitting the right-side peg.

[HD18JBGuy]

But why? No sure what the big deal is and why people think it is always a "bad idea".

Many mergers have proven to add value to their customer base and their shareholders and, in the long run, keep prices stable and more affordable. Just like any merger, the pre and post activities will be closely monitored for years to come to ensure that they are engaging in fair business practices and are compliant with various anti-trust laws.

I welcome it.

put down the crack pipe.... or at least try not to blaze up and then post. It doesn't work.

WOW, very cordial of you.

I have seen and worked on some of the largest M&A deals around pal. I spent years working at one of the big four public accounting firms in their M&A groups. Siimply because of the obnoxiously rude manner in which you responded to my post, I won't give you the satisfaction of answering any of your questions.

Good day to you. You should consider going back to school.

and how many of those are still operating, much less operating as planned? You're only as good as your last deal, so depuff the chest.

Given it's Chicago as your dateline.. Anderson or Ernst & Young?

and you are right.. I am just ignant. I'll leave discussions of high-finance to my "betters".

Plenty of them are operating and operating as planned.

Andersen? Pretty sure they have been non-existent for a while now.

that ping.. magnetometer needle hitting the right-side peg.

Oh, your so witty and funny.

[SMLCHNG]

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=80757



Locking this up, as there's a duplicate in Off Topic that was started a wee bit sooner.


And chill out folks. Thanks.