Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

June 21, 2008 -

Financial website The Motley Fool mocks Electronic Arts today.

Rick Aristotle Munarriz delivers the slap in a column recounting EA's seemingly endless campaign to acquire Grand Theft Auto publicher Take-Two Interactive:

What if you threw a wedding and nobody came? That's becoming the embarrassing reality... EA's latest tender offer to buy the Grand Theft Auto IV software hotshot expired on Monday, so what did EA do? It repeated the offer. Again.

 

For those scoring at home, this is the third time that EA has seen its tender offer... expire sorely undersubscribed. It gets worse with every passing month. EA had 6.4 million shares -- or less than 8% of the outstanding shares -- submitted during the first tender. EA now has just 6.1 million shares on board.

 

EA needs to step up and either raise its bid, dare Take-Two to seek out a better deal elsewhere, or just walk away. Anything else is just delusional.

 


Comments

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

There has to be more to it then we are able to see. Any company the size of EA isn't stupid. There are obviously things going on behind the curtain to perpetuate this behaviour from EA.

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

Let's be honest here...with Take Two saying over and over that they don't wish to sell to EA, be it for whatever reason, and EA continuing to attempt purchasing by giving these deadlines, it only shows how badly EA wants Take Two, and therefore, their asking price is too low.  EA came to Take Two without T2 wanting to sell.  That means they have to give them an offer they can't refuse.  Sadly, T2 has been refusing, so the offer isn't that great.  Giving deadlines, only to extend them every time, and yet still toss out that same amount...that just makes EA look more and more desperate.  T2 has EA almost by the balls in this situation, even though EA got the FTC involved.  If I went up to someone and said "Hey, I'll buy your car for $20 and you need to give me an answer in 5 minutes", then got told no, only to say "Ok, how about I give you $20 for your car and you need to give me an answer in 5 minutes from now"...it's not going to work.  It shows desperation on EA's part (and desperation isn't sexy) and it shows T2 isn't falling for it.

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

I have to agree, Electronic Arts, being the hungry overlords they are, seemingly can't grasp the concept of a company NOT wanting to join their dreadful "empire." And the fact that the FTC was giving T2 trouble until recently, despite them NOT wanting to sell, only serves to annoy me even more.

Fight the power, Take-Two!

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

Well, TT probably wouldn't mind if the price was right. EA's problem is that they can't seem to grasp that their offer isn't the right price, and it won't be for quite some time, if at all.

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

EA is just going to out endure them. There's no rush for them to raise their price: especially when they're offering too much as it is.

 

Critisize EA all you want, but they didn't get to where they are now by being bad on a business level.

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

So you think that EA will just keep extending the "deadline" on their offer for the next year or five in hopes that at some point the offer will become attractive to the TT investors?

Cause personally yeah, I'd call that bad business. They should have make their offer, up it or withdraw it if it gets rejected, and come back later when there'd actually be some pressure on Take-Two to sell. Instead we've got their offer where they've made their offer, it's been rejected, they decided to try a hostile takeover, and keep extending the duration of their offer as investor interest slowly fades.

They're trying to out endure investor disinterest, that's not exactly a very good tactic.

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

Maybe they think it's like an argument as a small child; Pester  them enough and they'll give in.

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

Yeah, I gotta say, they have summed the whole thing up. I never believed this thing to be serious, after all the nonsense EA was throwing.

-If shit and bricks were candy and tits, we'd all be livin' large. For information on games and psychology, look up:

Jonathan Freedman (2002)

Block and Crain (2007)

Grand Theft Childhood, a book by Harvard Medical School researchers Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl Olson

Reality/////////////////////////////////////Fantasy. Seems like a pretty thick line to me...

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

You know, EA, time for you to give it up, because obviously Take-Two isn't buying.

There comes a point in time where you must realize that "No" means "No" and that Take-Two doesn't want your money. 

Besides, if Take-Two went to you, I'd never buy a GTA game again.  (Or any Rockstar game, for that matter.)

 

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

The only fool in this is the Motley Fool.  Take-Two's shares are stalled below $27.  The market had already taken into account the large sales of GTA IV.  The stock is overvalued, as Take-Two is a one-trick pony with GTA.

EA is offering too much, not too little.  Most analysts understand that.

 

Dufus in New York

 
 

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

That doesn't make sense. If EA was offering too much, then shareholders would be scrambling to take the deal. As EA has managed to grab less than 10% of Take Two's stock, I'd say that's not happening. Obviously shareholders are hanging onto what they have because they think they can get more money for it down the line.

I stand by my original prediction: EA will get a significant share of Take Two's stock, but not enough to take control of the company.

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

Using the words analyst and understanding in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

Sounds to me like Take-Two's shares are stalled at about the value of the company. It shot up with the EA offer, then remained steady with the release of GTA4. That says to me that all EA's offer really did was hasten the raise in the value of the stock a little, and that it'll remain where it is when EA finally gives up.

I wouldn't call them a one trick pony either given they've produced stuff like Bioshock recently. They've got plenty of talent floating around that just need to put to use.

Either way Motley Fool's right that EA's just embarassing themselves by continuing to extend their offer. It should be clear at this point that Take-Two is not interested in being bought at this time for that price. EA needs to raise their price, or go away and try again later.

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

If they're offering more than it's worth then where is the incentive to sell?

-kurisu7885

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

Pretty much get the feeling that EA does not know when to quit.  Yes they want to control Every market that might bring in money and this is understandable being for FOR Profit company, but please.  No actually can mean No.    Stubborn fools. 

I probably would not care (or as much) if they had not managed to bastardise several companies that I used to buy game from.

To follow out Kurisu's anology.  Maybe the boyfriend (Rockstar, verendi, someone) or the bouncer (The Courts) will remove the irratant and kick him to crub. 

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

EA's attempt to buy Take-Two has been pretty anemic, that's for sure.  They make a single offer, and just can't seem to grasp that shareholders are either not interested or that the price is too low.  Normally, a sensible business would re-evaluate the strategy they pursued and change their plan... but I honestly don't know what to call EA's tactic here.  "Runaway Groom" doesn't seem to fit... "delusional" is certainly more accurate.

It's more like an unwashed man standing on a crowded street with a "free hugs" sign for the fourth day in a row, who continues to give passers-by a sad smile despite the fact that no one has hugged him since day one.

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

I'd say EA is the persistant horny drunk and Take Two is the girl at the bar with her boyfriend.

-kurisu7885

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

Really?  Who's the girlfriend?  I don't see her.  Who is else is offering Take-Two anything?

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

Autonomy.

---------------------------------

So speak I, some random guy.

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

It really is getting ridiculous.  EA needs to stop trying to monopolize everything.  We'll end up with EA, Microsoft and Nintendo controlling all the games.

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

Now if only Activision would step in.   I wouldn't mind working on the next GTA ;)

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

No offense, but I'd rather see EA get ahold of GTA than Activision. Ask around the office about True Crime: New York City if you want to know why that is.

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

Agreed, Activision are the ones whoring out Guitar Hero and deciding that the next Call of Duty gets put back in the hands of Treyarch.

EA, meanwhile, are developing Spore and Dead Space.

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

I'm not going to comment about the inner workings of Activision, I like my job too much.

If anything as soon as T2 is bought Rockstar will jump ship like there is no tomorrow.  They did publish some game on their own for a while.

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

@EA

walk away... you challenging everything is ruining everything

Re: Motley Fool Chides EA as "Runaway Groom"

The Motley Fool, dispite it's name, is actually pretty good.  They do a good job of making all the crazy economic terms and buzzwords make sense.

---------------------------------

So speak I, some random guy.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Which group is more ethically challenged?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MechaCrashGee, how did people ever get the idea Gaters are morons who argue in bad faith? It's such a mystery.07/02/2015 - 7:03am
E. Zachary KnightGoth, again, no one is saying that we shouldn't be writig uncomfortable subject matter. What people are saying is that chances are you are going to write it poorly so it would be better to not have done it at all.07/02/2015 - 7:00am
Goth_Skunkdiscussed or portrayed in an expressive medium. Such an opinion only serves to stifle discussion. And as I said before, the only thing not worth talking about is what shouldn't be talked about.07/02/2015 - 6:50am
Goth_Skunk@Info: The same reason why I would entertain the notion that the Wired article writer could be right: Curiosity. Except in this case, I'm not curious at all. I'm not interested in hearing anyone's opinion on why uncomfortable subject matter shouldn't be07/02/2015 - 6:49am
IvresseI think the problem with the Batmobile is that they made it a core aspect of the game that you have to do continuously. If it was basically a couple of side games that were needed for secret stuff or a couple of times in the main game, it would be fine.07/02/2015 - 5:38am
Infophile@Goth: If you're not willing to entertain the idea you might be wrong, fine. That's your right. But why should anyone else entertain the idea that you might be right? If they go by the same logic, they already know you're wrong, so why listen to you?07/02/2015 - 3:53am
MattsworknameEh, I love the new batmobile personally, it's a blast to mess aroudn with. Plus, the game is set in a situation that mroe or less leaves batman with no choice but to go full force. And even then, it still shows him doing all he can to limit casualties.07/01/2015 - 11:38pm
Andrew EisenAgreed. Luckily, we don't seem to be in danger of that of late. No one's suggesting, for example, that tanks shouldn't be in video games, only that the tank in Arkham Knight is poorly implemented and out of place from a characterization standpoint.07/01/2015 - 11:27pm
MattsworknameConfederate flag, Relgious organizations, etc etc. Andrew isnt[ wrong, just remember not to let that mentality lead to censorship.07/01/2015 - 11:20pm
Mattsworknamefind offensive or disturbing, and that mindset leads to censorship. It's all well and good to say "This would be better IF", just so long as we remember not to let it slide into "This is offensive, REMOVE IT". IE , the current issues surroundign the07/01/2015 - 11:19pm
MattsworknameAndrew and goth both have points, and to that point, I'll say. Saying somethign is improved by changing something isn't a problem, on that I agree with , but at the same time, on of the issues we have in our society is that we want to simply remove things07/01/2015 - 11:18pm
Andrew EisenSee? Suggestions for improvements that involve taking things away do not mean the work is garbage or performing poorly, critically or commercially.07/01/2015 - 9:29pm
Andrew EisenSkyward Sword is spiff-a-rific but it would be an improved experience if the game didn't explain what each item and rupee was every single time you picked them up!07/01/2015 - 9:27pm
Andrew EisenHere's another: De Blob is a ton of fun but it would be improved without motion controls. Incidentally, THQ heard our cries, removed motion controls for the sequel and it was a better game for it!07/01/2015 - 9:24pm
Andrew EisenI'll give you an example: Arkham Knight is a ton of fun but the tank sucks and the game would be even better without it.07/01/2015 - 9:23pm
Goth_SkunkWell clearly we're diametrically opposed about that.07/01/2015 - 9:03pm
Andrew EisenNot even remotely true.07/01/2015 - 8:59pm
Goth_SkunkIt is, if the suggestion involves taking something away from a product in order to make it better.07/01/2015 - 8:49pm
Andrew EisenOffering suggestions for improvement does not mean that the work in question is garbage or not doing fine.07/01/2015 - 8:21pm
Goth_SkunkIf their products were garbage, they wouldn't be as praiseworthy as they are.07/01/2015 - 8:08pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician