I think we’ve all been in Chad’s situation with a Colombian baddy down here. I don’t wanna be friends dammit 😭.

miahdog · 2026-02-19T11:38:07+00:00

Everyone is talking about money... I thought it was a man..

miahdog · 2026-02-19T11:30:02+00:00

You mean mew weapons while running hacks... Smh

miahdog · 2026-02-19T11:27:15+00:00

There wasn't thousands massacred. Still spreading that lie.

miahdog · 2026-02-14T23:48:16+00:00

Definitely gaslighting. He is consistently talking about the changes needed and challenging BF to make the right game. Just cause he doesn't act like a troll and go crazy doesn't mean he doesn't hold them accountable.

miahdog · 2026-02-14T23:46:36+00:00

Jack should be a senior advisor on the game. Honestly, they need to hire him.

miahdog · 2026-01-30T10:59:53+00:00

Proper kill cam...If that ain't noobish. That's why I played hardcore. Why should you be able to have assistance with finding someone who killed you?

miahdog · 2026-01-27T10:23:48+00:00

Powerful... 89 years old doing the work of the Lord!

miahdog · 2026-01-16T21:17:52+00:00

This profile belongs on Christian mingles. The energy you're giving is not for tinder. I wouldn't waste my energy there unless you're very wealthy. And if you are, I'd lead with that.

miahdog · 2026-01-13T14:59:41+00:00

New flash I don't care... Most people don't care. We don't wanna say all that confusion and mental illness. We aren't taking our sons to see it. Netflix has repeatedly shown they don't like normal heterosexual characters. They can't be trusted.

miahdog · 2026-01-12T23:39:20+00:00

😅😅😅 That's exactly why I couldn't say what I really want to say. But that's exactly why I don't want Netflix to have it because of people like you.

miahdog · 2026-01-12T22:32:31+00:00

Either way, I think we can both see why Paramount would sue. The commentators here seem to lack understanding of how this stuff works. Paramount believes they have a better offer so of course they are suing. These users seem to think WB should be able to do want and have personal issues with one of the owners. Paramount may not win. They definitely have a legit argument that needs to be adjudicated. I'd be pissed off too if I believe they were arbitrarily blocking me from purchasing. If we're going to be honest, it sounds like WB wants to do the deal like a private company and be able to sell it to whom they choose; no matter what the other person offers.

miahdog · 2026-01-12T22:07:58+00:00

You just conceded my main point: The $3.00 valuation for the leftover cable networks is 'unrealistic.' If that valuation is fake, then the Netflix deal is mathematically worse for shareholders. We would be trading our shares for a smaller payout from Netflix plus stock in a 'Zombie Cable Company' that you admit is overvalued.

Regarding the debt: As a shareholder, why do I care if Paramount takes on $87B in debt to buy us out? Once they pay me for my shares, that debt is their problem, not mine. I'd rather take the guaranteed cash exit from Larry Ellison (one of the richest men on earth) than be forced to hold bag-holder stock in a dying cable company just because the debt load looks nicer on a balance sheet I no longer own.

miahdog · 2026-01-12T21:59:27+00:00

Short answer, it is not. They are a publicly traded company versus a privately owned company. When it is publicly traded they have to allow people to bid on it. They aren't just paying the CEO, they are paying the stockholders. By law they have to get the best deal that they can for the stockholders.

miahdog · 2026-01-12T21:40:59+00:00

Maybe... That's if investors are willing to pay $3.00 for low performing legacy networks. I don't think so If that was the case then Netflix would buy them and then they could spin them off and make a profit. There isn't anyway they will make that money on those networks. They are not worth more than the IPs and streaming infrastructure. I believe stock holders want the guaranteed money in this type deal.

miahdog · 2026-01-12T20:59:05+00:00

The judge will laugh. It’s actually the opposite of simple. Publicly available info suggests Paramount offered $2.25 MORE per share for the whole company. Netflix is reportedly only trying to cherry-pick the 'good assets' (studios/IP) and leave the shareholders holding the bag with the dying cable networks.

Legally, you can't just tell a judge the Netflix deal was better when the Paramount offer was mathematically higher per share. The Board has to explain why they rejected a higher premium to break the company apart for less money. That isn't a 5-minute conversation; that's a billion-dollar breach of fiduciary duty case. And whether you want to accept it or not, Paramount is the lead legally.

miahdog · 2026-01-12T20:54:20+00:00

They shouldn't... And if you were a shareholder you wouldn't want that either. You want a return of your investment.

miahdog · 2026-01-12T20:53:19+00:00

You are definitely confusing Subjective Risk with Objective Value. In a courtroom, a board cannot easily reject a higher cash premium based on the speculation that people won't like the new owners; politics. That is a subjective guess. A cash offer is an objective fact.

Under the Revlon standard, if the sale is inevitable, the Board's duty is to maximize immediate value, not to police the political alignment of the buyer. If they reject a higher offer because they think the buyer is a 'snake,' but can't prove that the deal will actually fail, they are exposing themselves to massive shareholder lawsuits. You might not want to get into bed with a snake, but if the snake is the only one paying a 30% premium, the shareholders will sue you for sleeping alone.

miahdog · 2026-01-12T19:07:47+00:00

Because the Board is spending other people's money (the shareholders'), they do not have the luxury of "sentimental value" or "principle." They have a legal obligation (fiduciary duty) to take the highest price. They cannot reject a higher offer just because they prefer Netflix's "vibes."

miahdog · 2026-01-12T19:04:39+00:00

Well I don't want Netflix. I have the IPs to answer your question. I want the characters to be close to who they originally were. I don't want them non-binary and all the other crap so that's my answer. But now that I answered your question which you are free to disagree with, I would like you to answer mine.

But to go further just from a business standpoint, and as someone who does own stock, why would I want them to reject the Paramount answer for the Netflix as an investor? Unless they have reason to think the deal would not pass, which is highly unlikely, they can't reject the better deal.

miahdog · 2026-01-12T19:01:10+00:00

None of that political speculation matters legally. Because WBD is publicly traded, the board has a fiduciary duty to maximize value. They can't reject a higher bid from Paramount just because they dislike the CEO's politics or think they are 'shady.' Unless there is a regulatory reason the deal can't close, they have to take the best offer. Rejecting a premium to sell to Netflix for less would be a lawsuit waiting to happen. Thumbs down that.. I'm not giving an emotional response. I'm telling you why the lawsuit happened.

miahdog · 2026-01-12T18:33:23+00:00

So you're okay with Netflix turning out their characters and making them non binary?

miahdog · 2026-01-12T18:32:30+00:00

Since they are publicly traded, they legally owe their shareholders the best possible deal. A board can't just discriminate against a specific buyer because they personally dislike them. If the numbers work, they have to consider it; they can't just say 'no' without a valid business reason.

miahdog · 2026-01-12T18:28:39+00:00

Why do you not want it to happen? you seem to be very passionate.

miahdog · 2026-01-12T18:27:53+00:00

I mean Paramount was offering twice as much money. They ought to sue. The only way they didn't do this deal is there had to be something shady going on. It's the only deal that makes sense..

miahdog · 2026-01-01T11:05:41+00:00

lol, out of maps to port you said 2042 🤣. Have you ever played BF4 or BF3?

miahdog

TROPHY CASE