Pretty sure this is the thread where some clown tried to claim it would cost $100 billion to start a new TV network and I was called out for claiming (quite correctly) that that was hyperbole,
This week, Disney announced it was purchasing ALL of 20th Cent Fox for $52 billion. Still a lot of money, but that includes a whole bunch of networks, studios, content, etc, etc.
Your rebuttal is that it would only cost 52 billion? You got that in your back pocket?
Also, from the "New York Times"
Not included in the acquisition: Fox News, the Fox broadcast network and the FS1 sports cable channel. In the news release announcing the Disney deal, Mr. Murdoch said he would spin those businesses and a handful of other properties, including the 20th Century Fox lot in Century City, which Disney is not buying, into a newly listed company. Mr. Murdoch also still controls his newspaper-focused company, News Corporation, which has holdings that include The Wall Street Journal.
So how much does it cost to create a network? I tossed out 100 billion, but so long as the number is far greater than can be reasonably amassed, the exact number is irrelevant to the point.
I should have put it into terms that might have conveyed the concept more clearly to avoid people looking at the trees instead of the forest.
I should have said something like
"eleventy gadzillion" so people wouldn't focus on the number, and would perhaps instead focus on the actual point that the amount of money required is beyond our reach.
Yes, 52 billion is a far more reasonable figure than 100 billion. Good Job!
