Breaking news: Howard's company suing SiriusXM

GoodDog

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2008
1,594
31
48
Scientific Map
It could be the phone. I have one of the cheapest smartphones on the market and it doesn't download the Sirius XM app.

.
As far as I know, the "apps" only work on BB, iPhones, iPads and Android phones and tablets. If you don't have one of these units its not going to work.
 

Neigh

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2008
2,731
194
63
New Jersey
did you read the papaerwork Nic posted?
If you are talking about the complaint that was filed in the NY Supreme Court, I of breezed through it. The complaint doesn't prove anything and it is not intended to do so. Its only purpose is to state Howard's claim. Proof of the allegations is presented in a trial...or, if there are no factual issues.... in affidavits and a memorandum of law in support of a motion for summary judgment. That motion is what we must pray for because there will be plently on juicy shit in both sets of papers. There is the possibility that both sides would ask the court to keep the documents confidential. You know that Howard does not want us to read the whole contract. We might find out what he was actually paid for the first five years. So until we hear the other side's interpretation of the contract and read the particular language in the contract, we cannot judge Howard's chances.
 

RDog

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2008
2,873
47
48
LMAO that the Paul McCartney concert is mentioned in the lawsuit!

At the core of this is Howard being bitter he took a paycut. I don't know how that feeble-minded cretin can claim he *ever* had 20 million listeners, or that the XM listeners count towards his listenership. I remember chit-chatting with some people in a store buying XM radios once and they said they would never get Sirius BECAUSE of Howard Stern, they hated him. Something tells me that is not an isolated incident.

No matter what happens, I would think this opens up SiriusXM to other lawsuits from other parties in a somewhat related manner, and I don't think there is any way Howard will complete a 5-year contract. In fact he never even seems to refer to the longevity of the contract he signed, whereas the first 5-year deal he would talk about all the time in terms of it ending in 2010 or whatever.

The long and short of it is that SiriusXM will end up in worse financial straits win, lose, or draw, thanks to Howard and could go under, but even if it doesn't say goodbye to Howard before the end of 5 years. It's just as well, though, he never should have re-signed.
 

GoodDog

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2008
1,594
31
48
Scientific Map
If you are talking about the complaint that was filed in the NY Supreme Court, I of breezed through it. The complaint doesn't prove anything and it is not intended to do so. Its only purpose is to state Howard's claim. Proof of the allegations is presented in a trial...or, if there are no factual issues.... in affidavits and a memorandum of law in support of a motion for summary judgment. That motion is what we must pray for because there will be plently on juicy shit in both sets of papers. There is the possibility that both sides would ask the court to keep the documents confidential. You know that Howard does not want us to read the whole contract. We might find out what he was actually paid for the first five years. So until we hear the other side's interpretation of the contract and read the particular language in the contract, we cannot judge Howard's chances.
The complaint reference the contract in several areas of the document. Yes, it is not the entire contract and it’s written to cast Howard’s interests in a favorable light but the parts that were included make a strong argument for Howards side.

when the rest of the documents become public record we'll know more ( that is if its not settled first)
 

limegrass69

Confused
Oct 12, 2008
6,058
227
63
New York
Here is a quote from an SEC filing Sirius made back in 2004.
If Stern's contract mimics the language stated here, there is a lot of room for interpretation. That's why there are lawyers. Obviously this is not the actual contract, but their public filing should not materially differ from it.

We have entered into an agreement with Howard Stern, one of the most widely listened to radio and entertainment personalities in the United States, and his production company. Pursuant to the agreement, commencing on January 1, 2006, Stern will move his radio show to SIRIUS Satellite Radio from terrestrial radio as part of a channel created by Stern. We also expect Stern to develop and produce one or more additional channels of programming for us during the term of the agreement. The agreement will expire on December 31, 2010.

Our financial obligations under the agreement are material, and consist of both fixed and incentive payments. These obligations are payable partly in cash and partly in shares of our common stock.

We estimate that we will recoup our fixed obligations under the agreement when we acquire approximately 1,000,000 incremental subscribers. This estimate is based upon a number of significant assumptions (which we believe to be reasonable but which contain significant uncertainties), including the timing and costs of acquiring such subscribers and the length of time such individuals remain subscribers. In addition, if we achieve the incentive milestones contained in the agreement, we believe that the material positive effects on our business will far outweigh the related incentive payments.

Our aggregate fixed obligations under the agreement are approximately $100 million per year. These costs include production and operating costs for the show, including compensation of show cast and staff, overhead, construction costs for a dedicated studio, a budget for the development of additional programming and marketing concepts, and payments to Stern and his agent.

We are also obligated to make substantial stock-based incentive payments under the agreement if we significantly exceed agreed upon year-end subscriber targets during the term of the agreement, or acquire material amounts of subscribers during the term directly and trackably through Stern's efforts. In addition, upon reaching an agreed upon number of subscribers, we will share a portion of the revenue we derive directly from advertising on the Stern channels, and the revenue we derive from subscribers acquired during the term directly and trackably through Stern's efforts.

We believe that our agreement with Stern will have a material positive benefit to our business, including a positive impact on consumer awareness, average revenue per subscriber, churn and partner relations. Nevertheless, in the event we generate substantially fewer than 1,000,000 subscribers in excess of our current plans due to the addition of Stern to our programming line-up, the large fixed obligations under the agreement with Stern could have a material negative impact on our financial condition and results of operations.
 

thekingofnicotine

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2009
2,526
54
48
I'm listening to today's show and when a caller brings it up to Howard, Robin claims she didn't hear anything about this.

Does anyone believe that Robin knew nothing until today? What bullshit.
 

Neigh

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2008
2,731
194
63
New Jersey
"Our aggregate fixed obligations under the agreement are approximately $100 million per year. These costs include production and operating costs for the show, including compensation of show cast and staff, overhead, construction costs for a dedicated studio, a budget for the development of additional programming and marketing concepts, and payments to Stern and his agent."

So, the costs of production and staff do come out of Howard's $100 million. So much for "they work for Sirius and I have nothing to with it."

"We are also obligated to make substantial stock-based incentive payments under the agreement if we significantly exceed agreed upon year-end subscriber targets during the term of the agreement, or acquire material amounts of subscribers during the term directly and trackably through Stern's efforts. In addition, upon reaching an agreed upon number of subscribers, we will share a portion of the revenue we derive directly from advertising on the Stern channels, and the revenue we derive from subscribers acquired during the term directly and trackably through Stern's efforts."

Not sure which part of this Howard is suing on. But if it is the "acquire material amounts of subscribers during the term directly and tackably through Stern's efforts" then I understand why Sirius has not caved in to Howard's demands.
 

RDog

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2008
2,873
47
48
I'm listening to today's show and when a caller brings it up to Howard, Robin claims she didn't hear anything about this.

Does anyone believe that Robin knew nothing until today? What bullshit.
You could tell she did know about it, but claims she didn't read the article about it. I suspect she wants no part of it, though. It really doesn't benefit the show in any way and if Howard loses, then what. :clueless:
 

thekingofnicotine

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2009
2,526
54
48
It sounds like Howard is suing on a technicality. We still have to see Sirius' side of it though.

One thing about Howard, his contracts make sure that he gets money out of every little thing possible.
 

RDog

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2008
2,873
47
48
It sounds like Howard is suing on a technicality. We still have to see Sirius' side of it though.

One thing about Howard, his contracts make sure that he gets money out of every little thing possible.
True dat. Still, regardless of who is in the right and who is in the wrong, it's hard to feel sorry for a guy whose work ethic is so bad, has $500 million (or whatever), and feels the need to potentially destroy his employer so he gets a few more million (or whatever). Class act.
 

thekingofnicotine

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2009
2,526
54
48
Well if they did write that in the contract it means Howard is right about this but I still don't get it.

Why re-sign first? And notice he waited till all his tv appearances were done in order to file the suit.
 

Neigh

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2008
2,731
194
63
New Jersey
Well if they did write that in the contract it means Howard is right about this but I still don't get it.

Why re-sign first? And notice he waited till all his tv appearances were done in order to file the suit.
Wait wait...Do you believe that the subscribers acquired when Sirius acquired or merged with XM are "directly and trackably through Stern's efforts" ? [If that is the language Howard is relying on] I don't see them coming directly or trackably through Stern's efforts.
 

limegrass69

Confused
Oct 12, 2008
6,058
227
63
New York
It sounds like Howard is suing on a technicality. We still have to see Sirius' side of it though.
Most lawsuits of this sort are based on some sort of technicality, interpretation, or sloppy contract drafting. That's why we have courts and lawyers. If it was me, and I thought I had a pretty good opportunity to score the kind of coin we are talking about here, I'd take a shot. Why not? At this point, there is nothing to lose. There will likely be a financial settlement of some sort here.

He was very calculating in waiting until after he re-signed his current deal. He was also calculating in doing a press tour prior to filing the lawsuit so that he could go back and point to it as evidence of getting out and hustling on the company's behalf.

He's getting some good advice.
 

thekingofnicotine

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2009
2,526
54
48
Wait wait...Do you believe that the subscribers acquired when Sirius acquired or merged with XM are "directly and trackably through Stern's efforts" ? [If that is the language Howard is relying on] I don't see them coming directly or trackably through Stern's efforts.
I don't believe it. I think this is why they never included Howard into XM. Instead if you want Howard you need to buy the Best of Sirius package. Sirius probably knew this was all coming.
 

geosync

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2008
1,413
184
63
Portland, Or
Limegrass has it right. He did the press tour to show the courts that he's doing everything in his power to attract new listeners. He didn't want to do it, but for the coin he could potentially get, it's a pittance. The xm'ers don't have to turn on BOS, or even want it, but the contract language clearly names all those subs as being able to hear his channels broadcast. And for the 'fee' he gets in that eventuality, they charged the 3.99 for it.
 

RDog

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2008
2,873
47
48
I find myself getting increasingly angry at Howard that this could potentially end SiriusXM, and thus end my enjoyment of the music channels, etc.