Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?

  • Yes, will be approved without changes.

    Votes: 221 24.9%

  • Yes, will be approved but with structural changes to ABK.

    Votes: 102 11.5%

  • Yes, will be approved but only with behavioral concessions.

    Votes: 262 29.6%

  • No, will not be approved.

    Votes: 301 34.0%
  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ass of Can Whooping said:
Corrupt ass lying fuckers. Make bed with the devil prepare to get staked
Click to expand...
They're not corrupt, they're just incompetent. CMA initial decision was a joke, that no one else in the world agreed with. Their only ally, the FTC got humiliated repeatedly. MS probably just explained reality to some top people; namely that they are not going to let an incompetent regulatory board cost them $3 billion and the deal for poor reasons. They probably explained that they are closing over CMA if FTC loses, and that CMA will lose ultimately, and MS would rather not have that heat either. So they both lose, but that is what would happen. Then they worked out something where they both win. The only actual pressure on CMA was MS saying they would close over them. It's not corrupt to read the room and realize your ideological decision is about to cost you.
 
Banjo64 said:
The CMA have definitely been leaned on here. By who I don't know. It's one thing to set out that they are willing to engage in a new process due to fairness and transparency. The way they are begging it's like they are an interested party now.
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly! Like if the judge doesn't grant them what MS asks, what does the CMA lose here? They could just block the acquisition tomorrow and forget about it. Unless they are a huge party to this.
 
tmlDan said:
"Coincidence in timing of the FTC's decision" formed not part in the CMA's decision.

I smell LIES lol
Click to expand...

Topher said:
CMA just lied through their teeth
Click to expand...

To be fair, I'd lean towards this rather being a stupid coincidence than anything else.
Such decisions and "strong-arming" doesn't happen in a day. It trickles down the system, so if they were trying to bend the CMA to their will, it would've happened way before the ruling.
I'd imagine them starting to bend would be a more likely reason why the FTC wanted the preliminary injunction than MS trying to close over the FTC AND the CMA.

But that's all just speculation, of course. For all we know, MS might've really just given them good divestitures or promises to satisfy their concerns over cloud, so the CMA changed their position.
 
Mephisto40 said:
No you cant

Perjury Act 1911

An Act to consolidate and simplify the Law relating to Perjury and kindred offences.
www.legislation.gov.uk www.legislation.gov.uk
Click to expand...
amber heard GIF
 
CuNi said:
To be fair, I'd lean towards this rather being a stupid coincidence than anything else.
Such decisions and "strong-arming" doesn't happen in a day. It trickles down the system, so if they were trying to bend the CMA to their will, it would've happened way before the ruling.
I'd imagine them starting to bend would be a more likely reason why the FTC wanted the preliminary injunction than MS trying to close over the FTC AND the CMA.

But that's all just speculation, of course. For all we know, MS might've really just given them good divestitures or promises to satisfy their concerns over cloud, so the CMA changed their position.
Click to expand...

I get what you are saying, but I don't buy it. The timing was too perfect.
 
Heisenberg007 said:
Yes, exactly! Like if the judge doesn't grant them what MS asks, what does the CMA lose here? They could just block the acquisition tomorrow and forget about it. Unless they are a huge party to this.
Click to expand...
Political pressure.
CMA has nothing to lose with this case, yet they are in hurry.

It's smells corruption.
 
reinking said:
I am unable to watch due to work but this sounds like shit show that I should not have missed. :messenger_tears_of_joy:
Click to expand...
Honestly, I am about to fall asleep. it is so boring to watch. They keep dancing about the same point over and over. But this But that according to the page this or page that... just fuck all close it. it's gonna close anyway Jesus
 
Last edited:
HeisenbergFX4 said:
Just my opinion not only does the CMA know the proposal but have somewhat agreed with it and the Judge knows this and isn't happy
Click to expand...
Why would the judge be upset with this? Is it because it makes the CMA look fickle?

Maybe it seems like they are wasting the CAT's time and resources?
 
CuNi said:
To be fair, I'd lean towards this rather being a stupid coincidence than anything else.
Such decisions and "strong-arming" doesn't happen in a day. It trickles down the system, so if they were trying to bend the CMA to their will, it would've happened way before the ruling.
I'd imagine them starting to bend would be a more likely reason why the FTC wanted the preliminary injunction than MS trying to close over the FTC AND the CMA.

But that's all just speculation, of course. For all we know, MS might've really just given them good divestitures or promises to satisfy their concerns over cloud, so the CMA changed their position.
Click to expand...

This is also speculation, but it could be that Microsoft has been lobbying the UK government for almost a year (I'd expect ever since the CMA initially rejected the merger), culminating in Brad Smith meeting UK chancellor (finance minister) Jeremy Hunt.

Sony may have been doing the same but presumably MS has vastly more resources with which to lobby

I understand what you're saying, but to me it still doesn't make sense for the CMA to be so against the deal and then suddenly be like "oh wait no it's fine forget it". I don't see how MS only just now offered CMA something they were willing to accept.
 
Last edited:
Punished Miku said:
They're not corrupt, they're just incompetent. CMA initial decision was a joke, that no one else in the world agreed with. Their only ally, the FTC got humiliated repeatedly. MS probably just explained reality to some top people; namely that they are not going to let an incompetent regulatory board cost them $3 billion and the deal for poor reasons. They probably explained that they are closing over CMA if FTC loses, and that CMA will lose ultimately, and MS would rather not have that heat either. So they both lose, but that is what would happen. Then they worked out something where they both win. The only actual pressure on CMA was MS saying they would close over them. It's not corrupt to read the room and realize your ideological decision is about to cost you.
Click to expand...

Man I can't take this shit seriously anymore lmao
 
wolffy66 said:
The CMA was just doing the FTCs bidding. They then backpeddled when the FTC was losing. The CMA itself doesnt even believe in their reasoning and just latched onto any reason that sounded semi plausible.

Now they're forced to find a remedy for a "reason" they didn't even believe in.

It's just making no sense.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly. As someone else alsosaid somewhere (it might had been a poster on the Yahoo stock boards) the CMA went first as the Guinea pig saying shit. But in reality they had no teeth and their stance really hinges on what the FTC did.

If the FTC wins, CMA can hold firm too regardless and as a united US//UK front that might be enough to get the deal trashed.

But if the FTC failed, true CMA intentions were really all bark and no bite. Their problem is the FTC decision fell flat so now they are scrambling for resolution. Their hard stance instantly fell in about half an hour when the FTC failed. Just like dominoes.
 
Sony signed with MS, 24 hours later the CMA is fighting for MS, seems like sony and cma got a call from the same person to play ball this week?
This is all corruption across the board.

If the judge "take their word for it" it can only mean corruption.
 
CuNi said:
But that's all just speculation, of course. For all we know, MS might've really just given them good divestitures or promises to satisfy their concerns over cloud, so the CMA changed their position.
Click to expand...
How much can they realistically agree to divest without a new shareholder vote? And how much can they materially alter the substance of the merger agreement without submitting the revised deal to every nation for regulatory review? I think the answer to both is not much. which is why I expect some face savings measure at best, which has minimal, if any, impact.
 
NickFire said:
How much can they realistically agree to divest without a new shareholder vote? And how much can they materially alter the substance of the merger agreement without submitting the revised deal to every nation for regulatory review? I think the answer to both is not much. which is why I expect some face savings measure at best, which has minimal, if any, impact.
Click to expand...
Who knows. The only divestiture I heard about was cloud gaming in the UK where MS can't do it. Aside from that who knows what other clauses they have.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
‘Microsoft’ said they were streamlining 9000 people across XGS/ABK/ZM
Rumor 
19
456
Topher replied
Microsoft wins FTC appeal challenging $69 billion Activision Blizzard deal
News Business  2 3
125
3K
Unknown? replied
MS/ABK is advertising games that don't exist for data collection
46
3K
POKEYCLYDE replied
My apologies to Ubisoft, Sony, Activision, EA, MS etc. for making a big deal out of $70 games
2 3 4
156
8K
MDSLKTR replied
Battlefield 6 Beta |OT| Open Beta/Closed Weapons.
|OT|  60 61 62 63 64
3K
5K
EDMIX replied
Top Bottom