I thought that press release was where your info came from.
You stated: >>What is your source of information that leads you to conclude that this press release means something other than what it says? <<
All I can say is you should put more weight on this statement from the same release: >>The company is confident that it remains in full compliance with the terms and conditions of the cable affiliation agreement..<<
I must add that is nice to finally see some reasonable discussion on this board after the crap that was being thrown around the last few weeks. Thanks for the follow up to my question. id
Attached is an excerpt from the VVTV press release regarding the TWX lawsuit against VVTV. It is the part about seeking to declare the cable affiliation agreement null and void which led me to the conclusion that TWX wants to pull the plug on VVTV in the NYC market. I did not attempt to read anything into this press release other than what it specifically states. What is your source of information that leads you to conclude that this press release means something other than what it says?
MINNEAPOLIS, DECEMBER 19, 1997--ValueVision International, Inc. (Nasdaq: VVTV) an integrated electronic and print media direct marketing company and television home-shopping network, today announced that Time Warner Cable had filed a lawsuit against Bridgeways Communications Corporation and ValueVision alleging, among other things, tortious interference with contractual and business relations and breach of contract. According to the complaint, Bridgeways and Time Warner Cable have been in a dispute since 1993 regarding Bridgeways' attempt to assert "must carry" rights with respect to television station WHAI-TV in the New York City Area of Dominant Influence.
ValueVision purchased television station WHAI-TV from Bridgeways in 1994 and subsequently sold it in 1996. ValueVision and Time Warner Cable entered into a cable affiliation agreement in 1995 pursuant to which ValueVision agreed not to assert "must carry" rights with respect to television station WHAI-TV and pursuant to which ValueVision's programming is currently carried by Time Warner Cable in approximately 4.2 million full time equivalent cable households. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and >> for the court to declare the cable affiliation agreement between Time Warner Cable and ValueVision null and void.<< The company is confident that it remains in full compliance with the terms and conditions of the cable affiliation agreement and that it has been inappropriately named in this lawsuit involving Time Warner Cable and Bridgeways. The company believes that the lawsuit is completely without merit and plans to defend it vigorously.
You stated: >>Time Warner can�t wait to pull the plug on VVTV in the NYC market.<<
Could you please explain your basis for this statement? If you are using the TW lawsuit as your basis, you may be reading too much into it. The lawsuit has nothing to do with trying to pull VVTV off the NYC market systems.
I would have little trouble believing that management would resort to such a tactic except that no employees or members of the board of directors own any of the stock (except for the "Bob's" who own 8.75%).
How much free time do you guys have on your hands? Why would anyone pay someone to vote their shares in a particular way - it's just lost $$. These guys are worth millions and own thousands or tens of thousands times the number of shares the 2 of you have combined. Why post these nonsensical messages? Are you just availing yourselves of your First Amendment rights to blather in cyberspace. This area should be used constructively or people with real insight and information will become frustrated and lose all interest in making useful posts. Why not just exchange e-mail addresses and spare all the rest of us from your unfounded speculation. I for one would appreciate less conjecture and just pure confirmable facts. How about giving it a try?