The Sporting Class: Welcome to the Spinoff Era

Welcome to Pablo Torre Finds Out.

I am Pablo Torre, and today we're going to find out what this sound is.

When you're getting high with your friends, you talk about credit scores right after this ad.

If you're looking to add something special to your next celebration, try Remy Martin 1738 Accord Royale.

This smooth, flavorful cognac is crafted from the finest grapes and aged to perfection, giving you rich notes of oak and caramel with every sip.

Whether you're celebrating a big win or simply enjoying some cocktails with family and friends, Remy Martin 1738 is the perfect spirit to elevate any occasion.

So go ahead, treat yourself to a little luxury, and try Remy Martin 1738 Accord Royale.

Learn more at remymartin.com.

Remy Martin Cognac, Feene Champagne, Origins Alcoholic Volume recorded by Remy Control, USA Incorporated in Europe, New York, 1738, Centaur design.

Please drink responsibly.

Are we rolling?

Oh, sweet.

Okay.

David got a haircut.

David got a haircut?

This just came up on Dan's show, and

they put a picture of Cameron Diaz from there's something about Mary.

And I was annoyed because days one through six, post-haircut, I'm able to do this with my hair.

Days seven through 21, it combs to the side.

It's a fine part.

I think that's why people are noticing the part.

Do we call it a widow's peak?

Very strong, very strong.

No, it's not a widow's peak.

I'm talking about the line.

That's totally different.

Are you sure?

I think the line that goes through the window.

The widow's peak is this, is my receding hairline.

Thank you, Pablo.

Believe me, you'll be there one day.

This is the peak.

I will not be there one day.

Genetically speaking.

It is a guarantee.

You're going to have a full head of hair exactly as you are when you're 57.

That's right.

Okay.

We'll know each other.

We'll still be

at the next boarding class.

And what year will that be?

I'm 39 right now.

It's just 18 years from now.

18 years.

It's really not that long.

If you think about it, 2043

is the same as 2007.

This hairline's not going anywhere.

Yeah.

You got the Carolina.

I was going to say Carolina coastline.

You have the California coastline.

I got the Carolinas.

Go look at yourself in 2007 and see if you have the same

from 07.

I don't want to do that.

I'd like a side-by-side if you have enough staff.

John?

I don't actually think it would do you any good.

So I wouldn't do it.

I agree.

Time beats everyone.

John's haircut strategy, I feel like, is different from David's and mine.

Yeah, I would like the least to do when I take a shower.

I put a towel on it and

rub it down and I'm done.

You look healthy and tan and happy because everyone's doing what you wish according to your schedule.

Yeah.

David's like,

yeah.

David's literally twiddling his thumbs, which is it's been a stressful moment to make sure.

Now, to get to a place exactly at the moment you said in New York City, not as easy as people may think.

No, I know.

New York City.

Greatest city in the world.

Should you take the subway?

Not here because my deal with you, thankfully, is that I get to Uber one way, so I don't schwitz before a show, but subway home.

Because it doesn't matter if I look terrible when I get home.

I'd like to not look like I just got off the subway to do a show with you.

Switzer?

That was your last giveaway negotiation.

Already before you got here, I used the word hundled.

Ooh, that's got pejorative connotations.

Well, it was meant to.

Oh, it was.

I don't think you meant it in the way that I'm saying it's pejorative.

People who say Handel, it can be viewed as anti-Semitic, which I know you don't mean to be.

This is another, it's rooted in

another name for Honshu,

which is

the largest of the islands forming Japan.

That's not what Handel is.

No.

No, no.

At least

as it used to be defined in Lee Roy, Leo Rostin's Joys of Yiddish,

it was to be manipulated, right?

It was

to be scammed.

Yeah.

Yes.

Okay, here it is.

There's a whole Esquire article about the word hondle.

Why were you talking about being hondled?

Were you referring to me?

Because we're talking about sports business.

Ah, I internalized that.

It would need a little more context than we have time or would be helpful to the audience, but we can probably move on.

Well, now that we've been scared off by David's claims, which

I believe we have full now context to establish the innocence of us citing a word that was cited in the OED in 1965, earliest known usage in the 60s, Esquire magazine.

I think we're all right.

I think we're all right.

It's not a great word.

It's a con okay.

Well, urban dictionary.com has it as a conjunction of fondle and handle, which which maybe is a modern etymology.

I don't think so.

That's

Yiddish.

There is

nothing to do with fondling.

Agree to disagree.

So I want to get though to, I suppose, conscious uncoupling to a separation of bodies, of entities, because we are in the season of Spinco's.

And WBD,

which I guess has another meaning before my time,

but currently it's Warner Brothers Discovery.

Isn't there another thing?

WD40?

WD-40.

Yeah, that's the thing that makes things stop squeaking.

No, WD-40 is what you use to

stop the squeak of a hinge.

Very good.

That has nothing to do with WB400.

While that may be possibly another metaphor I could seize upon, I will just keep it moving.

Warner Brothers Discovery, the parent company to cable channels such as CNN, TBS, TNT, they announced Monday that it's splitting into twain, two publicly traded companies.

Funny enough, we have spent a lot of time talking about David Zasloff, the head of

this entity, the larger entity, showing showing up at NYX Games, wearing his very,

very new NYX cap, court side.

But now the two companies are WBD Streaming and Studios, which he will run.

That's HBO, Warner Brothers Pictures, DC Studios.

WBD Global Networks will be CNN, TNT Sports, US, and Discovery.

And Zaslov will be the former.

Gunner Weidenfels, I believe, will be the latter.

Former CFO.

Former CFOs.

CFOs can do business.

It seems.

So what is,

John?

I want to start with you.

What is the big picture thing that is happening here?

Was this surprising to learn?

No, it wasn't surprising to learn because what they're doing is taking the,

I don't know what you'd call them declining assets, but you would call them

not high growth assets and put them in one company.

And they've taken the new streaming services and what people would regard as a future and put into another company.

The library.

Yes.

They

loaded the debt primarily into the old company, almost ensuring that it will not grow as fast.

So

I assume, David, you probably understand this better than I do.

I assume that that's the general reason they did this.

So you have to go back a little bit.

Let's go back to the merger of how Warner Brothers' Discovery came to be.

It was not, there's people in the audience who may not realize Warner Brothers Discovery was already a merged entity.

And there was a huge amount of debt that happened in that merger.

And the thought was, much like with CBS and Viacom, which hasn't happened, and now CBS is trying it again with Skydance, the thought is that if you put two companies together, that together they will be a greater company.

You'll get better earnings.

You will be able to have positive cash flow, and you will be able to have economies of scale.

So instead of two different news departments or sports departments, sales departments, combine them, fire people.

So that is the form of layoffs, not pleasant, but always part of post-merger life.

And then you have a healthier company.

Well, Warner Brothers Discovery never got to that point, never got to the panacea of health.

Their debt actually kept increasing after the merger, and it's become choking.

Let's explain why.

When you borrow money, you have to pay it back.

And it comes with

interest.

There's an insight.

Well, listen, there are people who believe, like with the national debt, hey, that never has to be paid back.

Why do we care if it's a trillion dollars debt?

Why do we care about refinancing costs for national debt?

These are major economic issues that people just don't want to think about because

what you're doing, Pablo,

you're not interested.

Well, but I want to distinguish between the kicking the can down the road on the national debt versus the pressures that force a decision like this, which is, to my view, as the layman, relatively speaking on the panel here, is embarrassing.

Is it embarrassing to you that WBD had this grand vision?

And of course, this was, we're going to make HPO max, we're going to undo that.

And this merger, which you just characterized, is now being split in a way that feels like, okay, the strategy clearly has adjusted yet again.

Yeah, it happens in business all the time.

So, I'm not as gobsmacked as you are, where companies get together or people get together with an idea and they put money behind it and resources, and it just doesn't work.

It's sort of like research and development and science.

You're not going to get a cure for everything, but you're going to spend a lot of money trying.

So, what happens is the debt increases.

And then, what happens when you have too much debt is that you're using too much of your open cash flow to actually pay interest on all the debt you have.

So, instead of that cash flow as earnings or dividends or for growth of the company, you're just paying someone back.

So you're earning money to do nothing with because you're using it to pay back money.

So that's not very helpful.

But why didn't it work, though, fundamentally?

Why could they not figure this equation out?

Well, John, I'd like to hear you, but I'll tell you my view is that when that merger happened, there was not a thought that the decline in cable revenue and in what we call just for fun cord cutting, no one had in their pro forma projections during that merger that it was going to be so quick and so significant and cause such a dilapidation in their earnings.

When was that merger?

Oh, I think you're going on.

Is it 15 years?

It's in the 2000s?

What year was there's several of them, but you can go back to the AT ⁇ T merger if you want.

and get a date on that, Coca.

You can go back.

WBD was formed from Warner Media's spin-off by ATT and merger with Discovery Inc.

on April 8th, 2022.

Three years only?

Man.

When was the ATT merger?

Discovery and ATT acquired Scripps Networks Interactive and Time Warner renamed it to Discovery Inc.

and Warner Media respectively in 2018.

And there was a merger earlier than that, I thought, back in 2016.

Time Warner, then known as Time Warner Entertainment, acquired Turner Broadcasting System in 1996.

AOL, that merger was 01.

Time Warner, because that previous one, the AOL one, was disastrous.

They went back to Time Warner in 03.

They spun off its cable division and AOL in 09.

Time Inc., where I used to work, they went Sports Illustrated, was 2013.

That was that spinoff.

They got sold to Meredith.

There's a lost track.

There's a lot here.

Look, I would suggest that it is often the case that high-powered executives think that they need to accumulate more scale.

They really want to accumulate more power also.

They want to be in other businesses.

They have a certain kind of business hubris that they figured out things so far, so they'll figure out things later.

And they then end up with a bunch of

MBAs and McKinsey

folks who come in and say, here's how we'll make it work.

And they make a bunch of assumptions.

The person who has hired them wants them to figure out how to do it.

And they made some bad assumptions.

They believe that things would happen that didn't happen.

They did probably run into the cable TV, but they should have 22, they should have known what was going on by that point.

So I don't think that's it.

I think they just thought.

By the way, all those other mergers you talked about, they didn't work either.

It was the hubris of AT ⁇ T thinking we can figure out how to be in the

entertainment business.

Remember that?

I do, but they were using their cable money.

They were using subscriber money to power all of these thoughts.

You need money to do everything they were doing.

And when the mergers happen, it turns out that the person in charge, so I want to think about David and this merger.

We're saying he's now part of the company, which is keeping the debt, which is a major thing.

It's getting rid of sports.

It's keeping the old guard.

Wait, I thought it was the opposite.

I thought that the other companies took on most of the debt.

No,

no, I believe I am 99.9, John, that the company with the debt is the company that David's got.

John is breaking out the glasses.

Coca is fact-checking for me.

And while we do that, I have a question that was sparked by John's reference of McKinsey.

Because in college, for me, you know, consulting gigs.

Out of school, you get my friends showing up at Bain and McKinsey and BCG,

and they they would walk into these corporations that would hire these very high-powered, very historic consulting firms to change things.

And my question always, and my question for you guys is, how much of that is them actually asking the consulting firm, please tell us what to do?

And how much of it is

them telling these 20-something-year-olds and more, but like often young people, we need you to be the reason and the cover for the thing we've already decided.

The justification.

The excuse for us doing a million things and then undoing them and then doing them back again and it being embarrassing, except for the fact that, whoa, whoa, whoa, this was a consulting firm we keep on hiring.

You know, you say, we say embarrassing, and I would say that the people who are running these companies, when their comp is, you know, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 million dollars, there was a great story that happened this week where the shareholders of WBD got together and it was reported and commented on mistakenly that the shareholders got together and said that they did not approve of David Zasloff's salary.

I don't know if you saw that, John.

Wait, who did not approve of it?

The shareholders got together and they were asked as part of compensation committee process, where do you stand on compensation for David?

as

61.9 million in 2024.

And they came out with a, hey, we don't like that.

That seems too high.

And it was reported that that had some sort of impact on David's compensation.

Here's a shocker for you.

Zero impact.

It does not matter what the shareholders thought, felt, said, whatever the PR was.

David Zaslov's compensation is set and agreed to by the compensation committee of the board, and the shareholders have zero say over it.

And I found it interesting that shareholders were spreading the rumors like, hey, we've got the power here.

Well, I have a different reaction, which is it's a shockingly high salary for what cannot be viewed as a successful performance to date, can it?

Their shares, WBD shares, are not outperforming the market.

As a matter of fact, they're underperforming the market.

So if that is the correlation, he is quite overpaid.

So John, speaking about David Sampson, slid a piece of paper across the desk and tinted his hands because bullet point H in the dock, David Sampson, is a correction.

Because do you want to read the quote?

It's safe to assume the majority of WBD's roughly 37 billion in debt will exist with the spun off global networks, the new company's new president said.

The not insignificant portion will remain with streaming in studios.

But DBD.

So David Zasloff is with streaming in studios.

Yes.

So not insignificant portion.

Are we assigning assigning that to be a dollar?

Well, no, no.

I'm assuming with $37 billion,

the

Gunner, and I do not know if that's the way his name is pronounced.

I'm sorry.

I believe that.

But he is taking the substantial majority.

Now, a substant majority would be 25.

So majority to me is just 50 plus one.

Well, it could be, but why would you call that a substantial majority?

That's not a substantial majority.

So it says it's safe to assume the majority.

It didn't say substantial, fact check.

And it says a not insignificant portion will stay, will remain with David.

All of this is kind of why we're fighting about this.

It's because nobody can say a clear sentence, either you guys or the people writing this stupid press release.

Debt is a major thing.

If you are splitting into two public companies and David Zasloff is running one of them and it is saddled with a disproportionate amount of debt, you are consigning that company to failure.

But he's not saddled with a disproportionate debt.

He's saddled with a minority portion of the debt.

But he's also, it could be argued, getting a minority portion of the assets.

Well, he's getting the assets that the future is based on.

I love it when a negotiation breaks out about a negotiation on this show.

You're saying you'd rather be Zazlov in this or Gunner?

Great question.

Who'd you rather be?

Who you got?

Zazlov.

I'd rather be Gunner.

Because

Gunner has an opportunity.

It's a new company.

You get a benefit of the doubt.

It's Spinco.

And the reason why you do Spinco's is that there's a story that you tell that may not end up being true, but you've got the support of the board.

You've got the support of the shareholders saying, hey, we're going to get a percentage of something that has an opportunity not to be burdened by the existing debt and we can be free and fly.

It is burdened by the existing debt.

They take the majority.

I don't know why you would think 50.1 and 49.9 if Gunner is saying we're taking the majority, but a not insubstantial portion.

It's even a negative.

He doesn't say they're taking a substantial portion.

They're taking a not insubstantial portion.

So

a not insignificant portion is two negatives.

That makes it significant.

But hold on.

But this is the, this is the, this is the stupidity of this entire conversation.

So it is safe to assume that the majority of the 37 billion in debt load will exist with global networks, which are the Zaslav sports rights and news stuff, CNN and others.

A not insignificant portion feels like a very clear attempt to be unclear because it's going to be something that is uncomfortable, but also not nearly as much as the majority that the news and sports side of it is going to be, that Zaslav's side is going to be.

No, no, that's it's the other way.

Yeah, I don't, I had it the other way, but I totally

and it's counterintuitive because you would think

you would not attach the most debt to the company unlikely to grow.

And I think that's what they did.

Well, and it's because David is,

I believe, Gunner reported to David.

So there's no way that Gunner is going to get a better deal than David.

Well, yes.

So the whole idea is that Gunner is taking on more debt.

David Zaslov is getting less debt.

That is the very simple takeaway amid all of the mealy-mouthedness of the statements, my now included.

Well, it's not that it's mealy-mouthed.

It's that these are complicated transactions.

And by the way, these aren't done.

It should be pointed out that what was announced was not a completed approved transaction.

Much like when the merger was announced with CBS and Skydance, there's so many things that have happened, including an announcement this week that there are going to be further layoffs at CBS Paramount because they're not exactly sure when the deal is going to close, who was supposed to close by the end of June, and what it's all going to look like after.

So these are complicated issues dealing with billions of dollars and millions of people.

No disagreement, but I'll read you a little bit of gobbledygook.

By operating as two distinct and optimized companies in the future, we're empowering those iconic brands with a sharper focus and strategic flexibility they need to compete most effectively in today's evolving media landscape.

Inspiring.

That's a great quote.

That's right up there with four score in seven years.

Except that one really meant 87 years ago.

But also around the world.

By the way, call me Ishmael.

They just put two companies together, but in order to optimize them in the future, they must break them back apart.

So why do they put them together to start with?

If you're looking to add something special to your next celebration, try Remy Martin 1738 Accord Royale.

This smooth, flavorful cognac is crafted from the finest grapes and aged to perfection, giving you rich notes of oak and caramel.

with every sip.

Whether you're celebrating a big win or simply enjoying some cocktails with family and friends, Remy Martin 1738 is the perfect spirit to elevate any occasion.

So go ahead, treat yourself to a little luxury, and try Remy Martin 1738 Accord Royale.

Learn more at remymartin.com.

Remy Martin Cognac, Veen Champain, 14 Alcohol by Volume 40 by Remy Control, USA Incorporated, New York, New York, 1738, Centaur Design.

Please drink responsibly.

So, this is this brings me back to the consulting question, guys.

Can I just return to that for a second?

Because, like how and why are very interesting questions to me.

And I just want to know when it comes to, John, I presume at some point you have to deal with like a consulting firm in some regard or almost almost never.

Well, you personally.

Me personally.

Disney does.

Disney does.

I probably will be

forgetful.

I did hire a few consulting companies.

By the way, I hired somebody to help diversify the company.

I'd probably go to jail now for doing that,

but I did.

You were doing DEI before DEI.

You need to do a consulting group and tell you Dan Levittard.

All right, fine.

No, but what I,

I never get it.

I don't, well, I do know why.

I never understood why people hire consultants.

To me, it's like hiring somebody to do your media rights.

Who knows your company better than you?

Why is it?

I realize you, and by the way, I read the book on McKenzie.

I don't know.

know, you read the book on McKenzie?

No, but I it is really, really awful.

The book or McKenzie?

Both.

I mean, well, the book is about how awful they are, right?

They tell everybody the same damn thing, which is, yeah, we're going to come in and help you, and we're going to help you cut costs.

And by the way, that's why they're hired.

They're hired because the current management doesn't have the backbone to actually make these decisions themselves, face their own employees and say, sorry,

but

we have to get leaner.

So they bring me.

I'm surprised by that.

Most executives don't want to be delivering bad news.

They don't, I mean, we're a little different in that way.

I'm totally fine with being straightforward and honest with people.

I understand that layoffs are hard.

But the thing about McKinsey and all consultants, you're talking to a person who's been blackballed because I built a stadium and bought and sold the team without consultants.

consultants.

And that doesn't happen.

Everyone hires Allen and company.

That's another one.

Who blackballed you?

The groups of people who are consultants were very angry.

Lobbyists.

I did all public financing without lobbyists.

We had one group called Poole and McKinley, but they didn't do much.

So wait, what does blackball mean in this?

It means they do not speak nicely of me and they tell other owners, hey, if you're selling your team, don't do it the way Samson did it because you'll only get 1.2 billion.

You have to do it the way we'll do it.

And by the way, those deals fall apart.

They don't happen.

And you've got the Nationals, the Twins, the Angels who can't sell at any price because these consultants have no way of putting a deal together that is reasonable or rational.

So the amount of money that's spent, it gets budgeted in a big company's budget.

Disney has a huge budget line item for consulting.

And you bring them in and what they do, as John specifically stated, it's staggering what a grift it actually is.

They come in and have a PowerPoint presentation of what they will do for you.

It's the same deck they have of gobbledygook.

All they do is change the name.

It's the most amazing thing.

The other thing that's in the book is that they work for competing companies, which strikes me

and strikes the authors of the book as a bit of a conflict.

Now, I want to go back.

I thought you were suggesting that because you didn't use the consulting companies, they blackballed you from using them.

No, which would be interesting.

No, they would, of course, like CAA has a whole department where they want to help with media rights deals.

Right.

And we negotiated our media rights deals without them.

We didn't want to pay them a percentage.

We wanted the money.

We didn't want it.

The whole thing about consulting is.

Percentages.

Yes.

You're paying fees.

You're paying fees.

You're paying monthly fees.

Then you're paying success fees.

We would get offers all the time while negotiating with Cable Vision and then negotiating with Fox, saying, hey, we think that you could get 30 million a year, but we'll only take money above 30 million that we'll deliver to you.

So if we get 50 million, we want a percentage of that incremental 20.

I was like, forget it.

I'll get the 50 million.

There is something fascinating to hearing this side of the conversation because as I say, a lot of my friends became consultants out of college.

And what I admired was that they are trained in like rigorous, quantitatively oriented, data-driven, strategic thinking.

And that is real.

But it's also funny because it's like, those are the guys I'm getting high with.

And you guys deal with them and they either tell you what to do or are the, again,

face of a decision that you just don't want to have your fingerprints on.

And both of those scenarios is very funny to me.

Do you remember the Blue Ribbon panel was a committee put together by Bud Selig in baseball to deal with steroids?

Oh my gosh.

It had Rick Levin in it.

It had Senator George Mitchell.

Yeah.

It was a pretty famous committee and it gave a report soon after I got into baseball.

So I want to say the report was done in 2000, 2001, 2002, somewhere in there called the Blue Ribbon Report.

No one's ever heard of that.

Wait, this is different from the Mitchell report.

This is, this is, it was a blue ribbon.

Okay.

You search it as blue ribbon and name names, but you did not get to it.

The Commissioner's Blue Ribbon Panel on Baseball Economics.

That's what we call them, but it was really just about steroids.

It was about figuring out who's doing steroids and why.

It was 2000, so it was right when I got into the game, Coca.

And what you do there, much like an economic benefit analysis for your ballpark, is you hire a company, you tell them exactly what you want the results to be, and then they go through their special Dr.

Seuss machine, and out comes a report that says what you want it to say.

And I don't want to say, I don't want to be the one, I guess I'll be the face of selling these reports and these consultants, but you can bet that no report ever is released by Disney by a consultant that is consultant-driven that Disney didn't approve.

I would assume that's correct.

So you're not neutral in that.

Well, this is the whole idea of you've hired someone to independently quote, or do they even claim independence in this case?

Big time.

NFL teams do it right now.

They hire these people.

Speak firms, they hire consultants.

He's investigating my company for harassment.

Dan Snyder had more people hired on the side to tell him about his front office, which is always funny to me.

Just gave him more people to harass.

Allegedly.

Corn Ferry is a great

firm.

Do you know what Corn Ferry did?

And I don't want to yuck on them, but okay, here we go.

They were hired by baseball for Bud Selig's replacement as commissioner.

And they were paid a ton of money to run, quote unquote, the search.

And it was Rob Manford.

Because

it's not like what you need to help with is if you can't identify people to do a job for you.

And a search firm can find someone in the semiconductor business that works for a firm that you don't know about to help you how to split the atom when you're doing a commissioner search or a gm search corn fairy's hired to do gms oh my god it's so funny you're saying you're saying that uh they're also googling stuff they're also using linkedin they're also watching games maybe they can't do anything that we can't do as presidents or front office people but again not to be maximum cynical about this, but it's hard not to be.

It's also helpful when you, I presume, know who you want to hire and need to say, we did an exhaustive search conducted by this reputable thing that is clearly reputable because you know them.

That's what you do.

That's what you're paying for.

Remember in the big short where they discover that the rating agencies are

paid

to rate the company that they rate.

And of course, those companies pay them.

So they have zero incentive.

Remember, there's a woman.

There's a woman who lose business.

Hey, you're a triple B minus.

You're fired.

There was a, I forget, there was a woman

in the film who I think Steve Corell or somebody went to see, and he says, tell me how this works.

And she's like, well, if we don't give them a good rating, they'll just go across the street and get the other company.

I forget what the names of those companies were, the bond.

Standard and Poor's fetch.

And what's funny is it gets press in all of the trade newspapers, et cetera.

Hey, MLB's debt is now triple A minus or the Mets are now a triple B plus.

And everyone's looking like, oh, it means health.

No, it means Stevie wants a casito.

Yeah.

I'm going to get my debt rated.

See if I got triple A.

That's the credit.

Todd can

be trading agencies.

What?

You do have your debt rated.

It's called your credit score.

Oh.

That's what that is?

Do you know what?

Do you know your credit score?

I know that sometimes I I have to freeze my credit score because I've been hacked by various like off the top of your head, you can't name it.

You cannot.

I just know that.

Am I the only one who can do that?

Of course you are.

That's so weird.

I have not the slightest idea what my

listeners

are excellent.

I just know that it's excellent.

By the way, I have no debt.

John just spread his arms out wide for those not watching on YouTube.

The proudest I've seen him doing this show

declaring.

He is debtless, undebted.

No mortgage, no car loan, no nothing.

Cannot say the same.

Very different position in my life.

Your credit score can still be excellent with mortgage.

Oh, and again, for those listening, it is excellent.

Because people are listening.

And they absolutely are.

And please don't hack me or downgrade my rating.

But it is excellent.

And I am also carrying a mortgage, which was, thankfully, signed pre-pandemic.

Pretty good rate.

I digress.

Yeah.

I digress.

I'm still blown away that people don't know their credit score.

It's one of those things, no social security.

What's your credit score?

Why would you need to know your credit score?

807.

807.

Is that good?

It works for me.

But there must be a scale.

Where does the scale go from and do?

There are people who have no credit score.

Okay, but

does it go to 900?

I don't know what it goes to.

The highest achievable credit score is 850.

Okay.

So I'm not where I need to be.

I'm in the 800s.

Nice.

I know that because I had to unfreeze my credit score.

So now you know.

I've been able to disclose on this podcast recently.

You didn't remember, but now you remember because you have to have a higher credit score score than i do definitely higher than 806 well i would say than 807 what is the advantage

what is the advantage of knowing your score what's the advantage of knowing your social security number it could come up in conversation

i've never had it come up in conversation before this are you the one who's hacking me and by the way is david samson hacking me your your social security number you have to know because it gets cited many, many times.

So if you, when you say, you want to sign into your bank account, suddenly sleep the contract.

I'm not putting in my credit score to get anything.

I flash my credit score around from time to time,

like it did at a bar, at a bar, when you're meeting people.

That's not like a subject of conversation.

I feel safe to say that that has never been a subject of any conversation, except for the conversations you have.

When you're getting high with your friends, you talk about credit scores.

Oh, yeah, all the time,

because it's funny, right?

I can see you guys giggling,

giggling, mine's 807.

But also, like, how does

I presume it's calculated in a very rigorous way and not the thing that it makes me think of, which is that, like, you know, you get statistics.

No, it has to do with...

I want my statistical personal game log.

You should use it.

That's what I want.

By the way, who want to get started and think about my credit scores?

Who is the arbiter of credit scores?

There are different companies who do it.

Exactly.

Excellent.

I could probably get 808.

I'm going to go find me a company

that I'm not paying unless they give me 808.

So the reason why you pay a monthly fee to these companies is that in case of a hack or in case of a theft identity, these people are on the case and you are protected.

I strongly suggest the $19 a month or a year, I don't remember which,

to have that.

Do you have that service?

You're paying for premium credit score rating.

Well, no, no, no.

Although I do have it at my fingertips whenever I want it, but no.

And I may check it like email, but no, because that's how you know if you're getting hacked or somebody's.

This is why I have to freeze and unfreeze multiple agencies ratings.

So this is real.

You're making a joke of it, but people tend to get into your bank account or

in 2017.

Equifax, if we recall that, major data breach, exposed the personal information of approximately, and this is a fun number, 147.9 million Americans.

I can't be the only one then, can I?

I think, isn't that the number of people that Christy Noam said lives were saved by the president's seizure of

fentanyl.

That would be

a coincidence.

That's yes.

That's a lot of lies.

It's more than two-thirds of every person in this country.

He's going to get elected for a third term if he has saved the lives of 265 or 280.

One zillion people, I believe, is the number.

By the way,

he sent the Marines to LA and they got the violence stopped before they even got there.

That is a much bigger discussion

we could have.

I feel so safe now.

It's not ideal what's happening.

And it's scary if you have people, loved ones in L.A.

because they're not making it better.

And my daughter is there, and it's not pleasant.

I don't want to see tanks on the streets of American cities.

We aggregate those two quotes.

It's not pleasant.

I don't want to see tanks.

No, it's

not a high bar.

I mean, like, I have so much to say about this that it's probably preemptively annoying to everybody listening.

The last time troops were sent in was when the troops were sent in by the Kennedy administration to enforce the Civil Rights Act.

I mean, think about that.

It's like that Obama tape when he killed bin Laden in the tape when Trump announced that they had killed somebody else who died like a dog.

Do you think they'd go in through the front door?

They didn't know what he was brought in for Kent State.

That was National Guard brought in by the state, right?

That's what Newsom is saying.

This is the governor's prerogative.

The president is not going to be able to do it.

Well, this is why my old classmate, by the way, speaking of my college years, Vivek Ramaswamy, gubernatorial candidate in the state of Ohio, has compared

this week

Gavin Newsom, governor of California, to, wait for it,

Alabama governor George Wallace,

because of this parallel of gotta send the tax in,

and they're resisting.

So, you know,

not a great economic indicator of the health of the larger enterprise that is the United States.

It brings you back to the merger because when you have a part of your business that you know you have no path to profitability, and I don't want to be a doomsday person because I'm not in general, but there are those who think there is no path to improvement over the next three years.

And much like with the company, if you know that you just can't see the path forward, you have to do do something different, or else you will be letting your shareholders down and putting your own comp at risk.

And so, what WBD did is it's something.

And what shareholders want, what analysts want on Wall Street, they need something.

They need a story to tell their institutional investors: like, hey, this is no longer a sell, not even a hold.

We're going to do a modest buy rating on this new split company in order to give them the benefit of the doubt that they're doing something right.

That's how Wall Street works.

So, Spin Co's, right, to now continue into the world of media and sports media and sports business.

Obviously, what Comcast NBC Universal has done, they spun off CNBC and MSNBC and Golf Channel into their own sports and news division called Versent.

That's what that thing is now.

The rest of it remains in that very parallel way, right?

News and sports stuff, but in this case, actually, NBC News proper is still with, anyway, it's getting more complicated than it needs to be.

But the point is, this is a thing.

It's a thing.

And John, I've been sort of attuned to this ever since it was mentioned to me what ESPN, when you were in charge of it, would be if it was spun off from Disney.

Which is to say, to restate what I always have to remind people:

which is that you have said when ESPN was at its peak under you, it made more than the rest of Disney combined.

I think what I said or meant to say was it's bigger than the next two businesses combined, the parks and the studio.

I'm not sure it was bigger than the rest of the company, so I may have misspoke.

I think the interesting thing about spinning off ESPN is a story about franchises.

So picture a business that has different franchise locations and one of your franchise locations is not making money, but two of them are.

Do you want to take the money you make from the two locations that are profitable and support the one that is not profitable?

Or do you just shut it down?

Or do you spin it off so you don't have to support it and let it stand on its own or die on its own?

And that's how franchisees think about life.

And I am totally fine with, I don't want to take money that's good money and throw it after bad money.

Bad money is throwing money into a project that loses money no matter what you do.

Why does that get supported?

There are reasons.

People want to be certain locations.

They want to say they're in certain countries or certain cities.

What Warner Brothers is saying and what the media companies are saying is we can't really say that growing and the conglomerate that we've built has worked.

So let's try it this way.

It's the same assets, by the way.

We're going to split it and we're going to have two share prices now.

Because remember, two public companies.

Now we have two measuring sticks.

And the next step after that is if one of them is flailing, it's going to go bye-bye.

I think that is the reality of what all these mergers will end with, which is a further consolidation, if not eradication, of some of these businesses.

I have no disagreement with that.

Well, that's why the rumors already are that the aforementioned less,

no,

more

the sports and news part of WBD?

There is rumor, of course, that the natural partner would be another merger with Versent.

And what you're doing there, think about it.

You're taking two sides of two big companies that have become four companies.

And what you're doing is a merger where it's now, so it's a, you're splitting and then you're reforming.

It's a real island of Dr.

Moros, though.

It's something.

Because what happens is when those merge, someone has to be the one in charge.

Someone has to be the daddy.

And you've got the level of ego when you are doing mergers like this on who stays in charge.

It's not as plain and simple as when it's David Zasloff and his CFO.

When you've got two CEOs going at it,

who gets the power becomes the biggest point of negotiation, actually.

Right.

It does strike me that

NBC buying the sports assets of this new SPINCO might be a good idea.

Which is to say, Versus

assets, NBC's spun off company buying the Global Networks WBD Spin Co.

Yes.

The Justice Department, the government, the commissions would start to get involved because when you see consolidation at that level, the theory is it's bad for consumers.

And that's the threshold they use when they decide what mergers.

By the way, CBS Skydance may not be be approved.

Forget that it may not happen.

It may not be approved by the government because of the lawsuit with Trump and CBS, et cetera.

I was going to say, which brings us back to the government and the standard of, I mean, we have an episode coming up about the neo-Brandeisian school of just like, of, you know, antitrust,

which is a whole other McGill, to quote David Sampson.

But it also?

McGillah.

It is.

Ron McGill.

All of this, though, makes me wonder: if our is the arc of justice bending towards venue sports?

Are we just back?

Is that what we're doing?

Have we accidentally remade venue the thing that we were making fun of 9,000 shows ago?

No.

Are you sure?

Hold on.

I think if I could translate, what you're saying is that venue was a combination of enemies coming together in an effort to be friends because the sum will be greater than the parts.

A skinny bundle.

And so what really is

what you said, which is all of these streaming services, if you add up, we're back to this and it matters for the consumer.

If you're paying more, have you really saved anything by quote-unquote cutting the cord?

Why wouldn't you re-plug in the cord?

And is there a possibility that we will end back at that?

And what these companies are betting with these mergers is no, that we are past cords, meaning we're past cable, and we will go knee-deep into streaming, even if people are spending more money monthly.

I believe that's what they've decided.

I mean, you clearly burden the company.

It's not going to grow with more debt.

They're going to be engaged in

layoffs, cost cuts, and that's why there's some discussion about maybe TNT Sports gets sold.

Now, remember, NBC was not in venue.

They were not in venue.

They did another one.

Another key fact-checking, clarification.

And

look, generally,

NBC runs very, it's a very well-run company.

Yeah.

And their sports has always been well-run.

And my guess is taking those assets would give them more scale.

to continue to matter more.

It actually might be slightly good for consumers.

I know that generally when things are consolidated, but since now you have too many companies that people want, if they want to get all the sports they want, if you had less companies, you probably could be good for consumers.

As I remember, though, that the Olympics are staying with NBC proper

and golf channel is being spun off into Versent and I have already lost track of what is where as I'm trying to fact check and correct myself.

I just know that with certainty, maybe what I found out today is that there will be more consultants and that it will not be easier to find

where the hell sports are when I'm trying to watch them.

Are we at the end?

Almost.

That's why you're saying found news.

That's my trigger when you say what you found out that we're at the the end of the show.

We got a couple of minutes.

I don't want to tell you what I found out during the show.

There's still time left.

Okay.

Well, it was a very premature

find outification.

Yes.

I have a passage here that

has been brought to my attention.

Speaking of finding stuff out, I want to give you a quote.

I explored the idea of being a consultant and actually formed an LLC and spent a little time talking to people.

Got several clients and resigned all of those clients in the first week because it took me about three days.

There's at least a couple of people who laugh when they hear this.

It took me about three days to realize I'm not a consultant.

End quote.

Who said that quote?

I said it one time.

Yeah.

That's you.

Yeah.

God, we have good research.

Way to go.

No, no.

I figured out.

Did that sound familiar to you?

Yeah.

Once you actually have spent as much time as I have running something, mostly consultant-free,

you don't want to go tell other people, but have no power to actually

have them do it.

So I didn't want to

tell other people what to do.

First of all, it's not interesting to me.

What's interesting to me is the

holistic practice of bidding one more dollar than the richest.

Did you do the resume trick?

You know the resume trick, right?

No.

So you don't have a gap in your resume.

You start a consulting firm and you name it after your own initials.

So it's JS Consulting.

And coincidentally, it's open for business the day after you leave a place and closes for business the day you get to your next place.

Well, it won't surprise you to know

I've never had a resume.

No, I never had a resume.

There's no difference.

My resume is updated.

The greatest trick John Skipper ever pulled.

Why would you update your resume?

My resume is ready to go at any second since I was.

But at this point, you're going to be trying to get a job that you don't have a resume for.

You have a reputation and a track record for.

So the reason I have a resume is...

You update your resume today.

My resume has the most recent, nothing personal, it's two hours.

It's ready to go.

So the reason why is.

You know, you're wasting a lot of time.

Credit scores, updating your resume.

I couldn't disagree more.

I literally couldn't disagree more.

Here's the wasted time when you don't do this stuff and then all of a sudden you have to start from scratch.

Let me tell you, I've never had a resume.

You're going to be sorry.

It's kind of too late.

I'm going to be 70 years old this year.

I got my first job

as an intern

and

I stayed 11 years.

And then I got the other job by calling a few people.

And then I got recruited.

They might have asked me to, maybe they did a resume for me and they asked me questions and filled it out, but what's the point?

Okay.

I'm not going to argue with you because no one who's listening to this

could possibly relate to what you're saying.

I think more people relate to what I'm saying than what he's saying.

And maybe that's just my blind spot.

I have an updated.

conclusion for today's show.

What I have found out today.

What I found out today is that um as much as i thought that i have no debt was going to be the tagline for rich guys and only fans

i've never had a resume has just taken a top spot it's not relatable in any way so i it there everyone's had a resume

it's a bio do you have a bio no wow Well, the company, some of the companies I've worked for have

you didn't approve it?

And you don't update your bio?

I have my bio ready to to go.

If I look of genuine confusion, if I had,

I would embellish mine, I think.

If I had approval, you get you actually lose jobs that way.

We would check.

I didn't say I was going to lie.

I said I might embellish it.

But we'll check that.

Now we're back to etymology.

Yeah.

It's a major issue.

David, John, we've officially talked too much.

Thank you both for doing this.

We specialize in that.

Put that on a resume.

Pablo Torre Finds Out is produced by Walter Averoma, Ryan Cortez, Sam Dawig, Juan Galindo, Patrick Kim, Neely Lohman, Rob McRae, Carl Scott, Matt Sullivan, Claire Taylor, Chris Tuminello.

Our studio engineering by RG Systems.

Our sound design by NGW Post.

Our theme song, as always, is by John Bravo.

and we will talk to you next time.