How much money Stern has already made isn't relevant Hugh. His side claims Sirius/XM isn't fulfilling their contractual obligations.I guess half a billion just isn't enough!
It seems Stern has to grandstand on everything. Could they not have discussed this last year when they renewed his contract?
and Sirius/XM saidHis side claims Sirius/XM isn't fulfilling their contractual obligations.
I appreciate that Stern should be paid what he is owed but why did he and his handlers not deal with this at the negotiating table last November when they hammered out the deal?The company said it was "surprised and disappointed" by the suit
That's a tricky issue to decide.In the suit filed Tuesday in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Stern's production company, One Twelve Inc., and his agent Don Buchwald said that Sirius made an initial bonus stock award after Stern started in January 2006 but failed to do so over the subsequent four years.
The suit claims that Stern helped Sirius exceed its subscriber targets by at least 2 million subscribers in each year of the contract, triggering a new stock award each time.
It also said Stern put Sirius in a position to complete its 2008 acquisition of XM Satellite Radio Inc., which had also courted Stern years earlier.
Sirius had around 230,000 subscribers to XM's 1.3 million at the end of 2003. As of the end of December, the combined company had 20.2 million.
Buchwald and Stern were told last year by Sirius XM's general counsel, Richard Basch, that later bonus stock awards were not granted because the company did not include XM's subscriber base toward the total number of Sirius subscribers.
"When Sirius needed Stern, it promised him a share in any success that the company achieved," the suit said. "But now that Sirius has conquered its chief competitor and acquired more than 20 million subscribers, it has reneged on its commitment to Stern, unilaterally deciding that it has paid him enough."
any proof to back that up, aside from comments from hoo hoo howie himself?Regardless of what you may think about his attitude or arrogance, the fact remains that he is right. The main reason for Sirius' success is Howard Stern. His two channels are by far the most listened to on Sirius. There isn't even a close second. Subscriptions have increased due mostly to him. Absolute proof of that won't come until he retires.
Obviously you don't like him, but that doesn't mean that what he is saying and/or suing about isn't correct.
I'm speculating but it seems obvious that Stern/Buchwald are pragmatic, and knew that if they made fulfillment of the 'old' contract a deal breaker in in their new contract, it's quite unlikely the new contract would have been executed. Fairly smart and sensible actually, and not really bad faith when you consider the two contracts are separate.and Sirius/XM said
I appreciate that Stern should be paid what he is owed but why did he and his handlers not deal with this at the negotiating table last November when they hammered out the deal?
The good faith/bad faith issue is per contract.Slapping a court case on them a month or two after the deal was negotiate suggests to me that Stern is and was not dealing in good faith.
Did read the lawsuit? Yes there's a contract, that's what the lawsuit is for, breach of contract! The contract was for 5 years 2005 to 2010. It said Sirius would pay Howard Stern for every unit of 2 million extra customers they could trace back to him directly or every unit of 2 million customers above their own projections. The contract also agrees to pay the agent/management 10%.Also; I feel that XM subs have nothing to do with this 'bonus', because they weren't acquired directly through Sirius. Otherwise, they should have had a second contract signed over it. Was there even a first or any contract?
Media such as radio have ratings based on demographics, so it would be trivial to show popularity in that range. But why bother, it's irrelevant to the breach of contract claim.Statements such as being especially popular with men ages 18-49, point proven on a huge range? Bet he wouldn't state if it was 16-49, if it were more correct, because that wouldn't make him sound better.
I don't think one year subs with a new car are common, 30 to 90 days is more like it. But what does any of that have to do with the topic here, which is the lawsuit?A perfect example, is a new car owner recieves a one year sub, and decides to keep it whether or not Howard's stations Infuenced his or her decision.
What's your "moral" rationale for excluding the merged customers from the total?Morally speaking - I do, however, believe that the millions of subscribers that were added due to the merger shouldn't count towards subscriptions as a result of Howard Stern.