Read more.Quote:
Reply to Ballmer letter restates existing position – that the offer is too low – and dares MS to try proxy battle.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Reply to Ballmer letter restates existing position – that the offer is too low – and dares MS to try proxy battle.
Much posturing in public, much going on in private no doubt.
That said, it's painfully obvious that if someone with as deep pockets as MS wants to take you over and there's neither opposing bids or regulatory problems, you may as well accept it and try and get the best deal for the shareholders. Financially yahoo can only suffer otherwise - either as a result of the bid getting ever lower or (if) the hostile takeover fails your stock price going through the floor. In today's markets i'd not risk the latter.
Appreciated the informative post, as it is of particular intrest to me, but I for one as a reader do not appreaciate the "dumbing down" of parts of the reply letter from Yahoo!. We are all competent readers and upon reading the original text should be perfectly capable of understanding it wholly and completely without any need for further explination.
Which bits do you think were 'dumbed down' Mark?Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkWarwick
‘Your comment that we have refused to enter into negotiations to conclude an agreement are (sic) particularly curious given we have already rejected your initial proposal, nominally $31 per share at the time, for substantially undervaluing Yahoo! and your suggestions in your letter and the media that you are considering lowering the value of your proposal. Moreover, Steve, you personally attended two of these meetings and could have advanced discussions in any way you saw fit.
So: it states that a flat rejection counts as entering into negotiations. It then states that Ballmer has suggested that he is considering lowering the price of the bid, but gives no context or opinion on that suggestion. It finally pins the blame for a lack of progress in previous discussions on Ballmer for not, apparently, trying hard enough.
This I personally feel was not required as it is simply an explination of the paragraph above it, although I'm not getting at anyone for this I'm just voicing my opinion. I always disliked when somebody attempted to dumb down something when it wasn't required.
I may have been better not saying anything at all as the comment was possibly a bit harsh but it was my feeling as I read the article. I apologise if I have offended anyone be posting that.
Seems like a good deal for yahoo imo.
I dont really see what Yahoo have to offer anymore. At one point about 10 years ago they where the best search engine and the only real option for im.
Nowadays Google seems to be the daddy in everything Yahoo used to do. Google search is huge now and has become a part of our language. Their mail is supposed to be pretty good.
Yahoo seems to be past their best now imo
No offence taken Mark - just curious.
I guess one person's 'dumbing down' is another person's 'interpretation'. :)
Yeah, I guess so. Just glad I didn't start an argument or something there :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott B