Talk:Canwest/Archive 1

Archive 1

CanWest owns The New Republic magazine

Shouldn't there be something in the article about Canwest Global and Goldman Sachs buying Alliance Atlantis? Tomcat335 22:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Done and done. JacobTwo 04:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be stated that CanWest now holds a major share of The New Republic magazine (TNR) in the United States.

This link addresses the changes at TNR: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2878.html

BlueVet --BlueVet 20:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueVet (talk • contribs) 22:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Icon of intellegical americana sold in a semi arms length transaction, sold for free almost (basically given for the cost of nice house to friendly management to soupbox.) When the President Obama advances humanity (saves earth), New Republic best play nice. "In March 2009, the Company [CanWest shareholders, includes me] sold The New Republic which was included in the Publishing segment (note 21). The Company recorded a disposition of assets of $0.6 million and liabilities of $2.7 million." [Source: CanWest 2009 Annual Report,p46] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.60.104.154 (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Move request

I think the article should be renamed "Canwest" (or go back to the old name). Only an admin can do the move, I think. --Rob (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

the best way to talk about bankruptcy

I think we can all agree that the company has finally made the sane move and filed for bankruptcy protection after several years of denial and some degree of honest effort on the part of Mr. Asper. Global and the National Post will very likely now be put up for auction. (If you don't like the expression "put up for auction" then all I can say is I'm sorry you're upset but seriously, you might not actually understand what's going on here.)

In light of this situation (i.e. the largest media bankruptcy in Canadian history, which is getting coverage in newspapers worldwide), do you think it might be helpful to expand on the topic beyond the following sentence? (which btw violates wikipedia standards - subject of article is not allowed to edit article on self, whether it's an individual or a corporation).

Since October 2009, the company has been operating under creditor protection as part of the process to recapitalize the company.[2][3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mardiste (talk • contribs) 01:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Not bankruptcy, creditor protection, completely different things.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 00:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The above post clearly has an agenda, so why is this not being pulled also?

Fred C. has left this post with an agenda stay. Quote: "[W]e can all agree that the company has finally made the sane move and filed for bankruptcy protection after several years of denial and some degree of honest effort". It would be dishonest of wiki posters to say this (allow this spin) and then censor facts that say different.

Please explain. --Haida chieftain (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be inaccurate to call it bankruptcy protection since there is no such thing in Canadian law.

What is bankruptcy protection?

Canadian companies don't actually file for "bankruptcy protection" when they go to a Canadian court to seek protection from their creditors. They do file for protection from their creditors under the inelegantly named Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. That's a federal law that basically gives a company time to try to work out its financial difficulties with its creditors.

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/01/14/f-bankruptcyprotection.html It's obvious you have an anti-Canwest agenda when you're spewing paragraphs on their supposed "writedown".

 єmarsee  • Speak up! 17:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads writes -- This information appears to be either unsourced or out of date. Discuss what part of it to add on talk page please.

Soapboxing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Fred C. censoring CanWest sharehodler facts too, writes facts are unreferenced, and far too specific. Like to respond with a question. Are you suggesting that these facts are not true? Please apprecaite these CanWest stock info is directly sourced from CanWest financial filings. Appreciate that CanWest is a stock, share info is what CanWest is. Use the words "as at" to start description of amounts of CanWest shares, as this is how CanWest states it, in its 2009 Annual Report, page 27. Requesting that Fred C. and Elen of the Roads, respond. The facts are sourced; if you say the facts are unsourced explain. Please demonstrate to wiki readers that you can access CanWest's financial information. No right to censor CanWest shareholder info, if they cannot access basic, rudimentary investing facts. Source: CanWest shareholder info facts at SEDAR http://www.sedar.com/ Test, simple task to confirm certain pages in 2009 CanWest Annual Report are blank: pages 28 and 30. Confirm that page 27 only has the share amounts on it, and the page is blank otherwise. Share amounts referenced here. Confirm that page 28 and page 30 in the 2009 CanWest Annual Report filed on Sedar are blank also. Please demostrate to wiki readers that you can access CanWest financial statements; Waiting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haida chieftain (talk • contribs) 19:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC) It's not Wikipedia's duty to be a directory. I believe this would fall under WP:NOTDIR#3. If people wanted to find Canwest's financial statements, they can find them on Canwest's website or SEDAR. It's not that hard. It seems you have a habit to insert fringe information into Wikipedia. If you look at other companies articles, you will find there isn't a section dedicated to resummarizing their annual reports. This article doesn't need a re-summarization of the publicly accessible annual reports.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 19:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC) To explain, what I can't see is why you want to put this info in the article. The financial statements are a primary source. If you want to make some point (second biggest company making widgets in Nebraska, engaged in dodgy practices on Wall Street or whatever), make the point and support it by adding a secondary source - the financial pages of a newspaper or similar. Don't just dump all this info in the article. You can add links to the financial statements in the external links section. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC) CanWest is proceeding into a reorganization, as authorized by the Company: CanWest shareholders have a right to complain. CanWest shareholders demand the approach that CanWest debtholders file the petition. "Liquidation Event" means, where proceedings are being taken for a bankruptcy, insolvency, liquidation, dissolution or winding-up of the Corporatio whether voluntary or involunatary, or any other distrubution of assets of the Corporation among its shareholders for the prupose of winding up its affairs, the earlier of:(a) proceedings are first authorized by the Corporation,or (b) proceedings are being taken by any Person other than the Corporation [Definition from CanWest Schedule A Terms and Definitions for special shares, Sedar filing Dec19,05, Security holders documents English] Encyclopedia ethics require that the germaine facts must be presented, unobscurted. The facts telling the history of the bond series taking over CanWest, and Canada's flagship newspapers, is a CanWest encyclopedia fact worthy of citing for wiki readers. Of interest to humanity. The real interest rate is 12 1/8% -- were junior, made senior -- 200 million in extra free bonds issued to these bondholders for interest rate reduction -- bond agreement (purchase agreement between Hollinger and CanWest) had CanWest purchase interest, currency swaps that lost CanWest hundreds of millions -- true interest rate is not 8%, as being reported -- important aspect of the bonds are the bonds are restricted, not registered in Canada or the US. Right to cite that these bonds from hollingers sale of Canada's newspapers, are retaking Canada's newspapers. For wiki not to cite this, would retard Canada, and would go against Canada's national security. CanWest balance sheet had cash reserves. It is a fact that as the 8% bond holders claiming CanWest, have been paid back over 400 million dolllars, and yet CanWest sharehodlers are still handing over the entire company almost to them. Not understanding why CanWest had 700 million in cash, and CanWest shareholders are surrendering. Currupt when Asper makes this deal, and gets a special ownership deal in the new CanWest. PS. Thank you Emarsee, for agreeing that the CanWest facts, being censoring are sourced on Sedar. Sorry Elen of Roads, Wiki readers cannot link to specific Canadian securities filings directly, as Sedar is a closed to web links (can only link to Sedar.) Welcome your copy edit. Thanks again for agreeing that the facts are sourced. --Haida chieftain (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC) If the details of CanWest's debt transactions are that significant to the reader, then they'll have been covered in secondary sources. Can you point to an article in a secondary source (a newspaper, Maclean's, etc.) that has covered it? I wish that debt restructurings—or even C$400 million payments made on debt in default in the course of restructuring it—were unusual, but they're not. What makes this debt transaction unusual—and can you explain it with analysis in an independent source and not your own analysis? —C.Fred (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Agree. Do not add this mass of primary information, and do not draw your own conclusions about it. If it's more suspect that your average business dealing, there will be secondary sources.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

CanWest's 2.3 billion sign-off to Goldman Sachs, a sweetheart deal for investment bank so says CanWest

Soapboxing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Goldman Sachs saying CanWest restructuring is fishy; has CanWest saying CanWest Goldman Sachs Canadian TV consolidation fishy -- loving it. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/streetwise/canwest-beats-back-goldman-sachs/article1401779/ Quotes from article: Among other requests, Goldman wanted the opportunity to examine many of CanWest’s senior executives and directors under oath, in its law firm’s office, a prospect Justice Pepall termed “enormously disruptive” to the restructuring. Wow, free pass. Ownership of this division was set up in 2007 as part of CanWest’s $2.3-billion acquisition of Alliance Atlantis Communications Inc. CanWest has since come to view the arrangement as a sweetheart deal for the investment bank. However, Goldman still enjoys a number of rights under the 2007 deal, including the ability to sell CW Media. Not a 2.3 billion dollar acquistition (less then that), better way to describe acquistition, Goldman Sachs given puts, right to sell Goldman Sachs Canadian TV stations to CanWest. CanWest email conforming that 8% bondholders transferrred 426 million. It is a legitamate question: Exactly how much debt is being exchange for 97.5% of CanWest shares, in a cash stripped CanWest. CanWest sent out a forward looking cashflow statement, claiming CanWest cash holdigs would be negative in the future, and neverfore needed to file for creditor protection, but did not include in its cash this amount, and the rest of the sale proceeds of its Austrialian TV network. Dear Neil, I have attached the release we issued on September 23, 2009 when we announced the sale of our shares in Ten Network Holdings. In response to your question what happened to the rest of the proceeds, as the release indicates CDN$426 million was deposited with the trustee for the benefit of the holders of the 8% senior subordinated notes. Regards Hugh HHarley@canwest.com --Haida chieftain (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Question to Fred C. and Emarsee. Why are you censoring how CanWest distrupted its final cash reserves. Your censorring of CanWest vital shareholder facts, reminds me of reading a CanWest newspaper, and the intentional lack of content to misinform. Why is wiki not citing the 426 million payment to 8% bondholders? Wiki welcomes debate, and respects that the ownership change in Canada's newspaper monopoly, is a Canadian national security issue. Computer encyclopedia guardians please explain your censoring/misinform. --Haida chieftain (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC) According to whom is Canadian national security jeopardized because Canwest did not completely default on its bonds? That's the crux of the problem: you have gone only to primary sources and then synthesized commentary about the actions. (Further, see the question I asked above, which you have not answered, about the debt repayment.) —C.Fred (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Haida chieftain, please do not change the content of your comments [1] after someone has replied to them. At best, that's impolite. --NeilN talk to me 00:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a place to proclaim The Truth (TM), it is a repository of secondary insight. If you want to inform shareholders of what you believe is happening, start a blog. If the financial press pick it up, it will make it into Wikipedia. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Again wiki's CanWest Restructuring and creditor protection lead line in error. False wiki fact: Canwest's various acquisitions took a significant financial toll. Intentional misinformation. Name any other major acquistion by CanWest. CanWest is an example of a repo; The foreclosing debt is vendor financing debt from CanWest buying Canada's flagship newspapers. Do not expect Canadian newspaper cartel to disclose the revealing CanWest financial facts, so no newspaper clippings Elen of Roads. CanWest soupboxes of soupboxes. Its reality that CanWest is a news disclosure monopoly, and is thee secondary source of the written word up here in Canada, eh. Name the other significant acquistion besides the granting Goldman Sachs the long term put to sell their 2/3 interest of Atlantis Canadian TV network to CanWest? Are none other acquistions, error exposed, so discussion censored. Onus to show the other acqusition. --199.60.104.100 (talk) The article already mentions acquisitions of domestic and international broadcasting operations. —C.Fred (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC) "I can't say that a consensus of editors will support the change so it gets made in the article. However, if you do that and remain civil, it will show that you're working in good faith to improve the article—and constructive editors acting in good faith don't get blocked." Thank you. Source documentation request. The article already mentions acquisitions of domestic and international broadcasting operations. No it doesn't; Please list them in this discussion. Yes there is lots of dispositions: New Zealand, and Austrailian, and Irish CanWest operations were sold, not acquired. Source needs to be referenced for the second significant acquisition of a large monetary nature. Wiki rules are if not sourced than cannot say various acquisitions. Rules are if not sourced, will change tommorrow. Next hiden wiki CanWest fact for debate. Interested readers of CanWest facts deserve context when told that CanWest net income is minus one billion; should not be deprived (the soucred fact, indisputable) that the net income irregularity is actually a hypothetical billion dollar goodwill write down. Encolypedia obligation extends to disclosing that goodwill credits orginated from vendor financing repo. Revenue Canada not impressed with companies, especially newspapers, selling themselves in semi arms length transactions, and registering the debt abroad to avoid taxes. The billion dollar Canadian newspaper goodwill writedown and CanWest balance sheet goodwill tax loss credits could be quashed, as the vendor's write down and sale, of the vendor financing agreement, reduces the sale gains for taxman to balance goodwill credits given CanWest. A vendor not entitled to goodwill tax loss credits from their own vendor financing deal, cheat tax mechanics. One vote for disclosing CanWest's hypothetical billion goodwill write down on wiki. --Haida chieftain (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC) What other major acquisitions have Canwest made besides WIC, Southam, and Alliance Atlantis? The major acquisitions are already listed. Do you want the article to list every single acquistion Canwest has made? I'm not sure what you mean by their "hypothetical billion goodwill write down", either they have made a write down or they haven't. Show a reliable secondary source that proves the write down. If you can't prove it, it doesn't go into the article.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 05:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Seconding emarsee's comments. If your personal investigations have uncovered irregularities, take it to the appropriate authorities or the press. Wikipedia is not the place for it - it is not required to carry any such information although you seem to believe that it is. If the regulators or the press have already taken an interest and published reports, then provide sources. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Also, what does Revenue Canada have to do with this? I thought the issues were with Canwest's financial statements, not their tax returns. —C.Fred (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Encyclopedia History: Canada icon newspapers sold in IPO before by CanWest to Canada's Capital Marktets: sale included attaching 825 million in debt to newspapers

Soapboxing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why is Wiki not citing the sale of Canada's icon newpapers into an IPO and then the forced buy out? (TexasAndroid thanks for inserting the CanWest Canadian newspaper IPO, in CanWest's enclopedia facts.) Newspapers sold into IPO income trust with a 850 million debt. Other debts too. CanWest accessed half a billion from Canadian Capital Markets, by selling 25.8% share in papers, yet bought back this IPO and 25.8% share, by borrowing at a 13.5% interest loan. Only to auction 100% of newspapers, beginning offer 925-950 million, with not debt, will equal cost of repaying 13.5 loan to buy back 25.8% of newspapers in july07. Source:SedarCanWest financial statements quotes, to help someone write Wiki's Canadian newspaper IPO sale and buyback facts -- CanWest MediaWorks Income Fund p5 Sedar dec05 annual information form IPO In October 2005, we transferred our investment in our Canadian newspaper and interactive operations excluding the National Post as well as certain shared service operations, which provide customer support and administrative services (the “Publications Group”) to a new entity, CanWest MediaWorks Limited Partnership (“Limited Partnership”). Concurrently, CanWest MediaWorks Income Fund (the “Fund”) closed its initial public offering of units on The Toronto Stock Exchange trading under the symbol CWM.UN and invested the net proceeds of $517.0 million for units of the Limited Partnership representing a 25.8% interest. We hold a 74.2% interest in the Limited Partnership. Monthly cash distributions are paid by the Limited Partnership to the Fund and to us out of the distributable cash generated by the operations of the Limited Partnership. A portion of our 74.2% interest, representing 20% of the total units of the Limited Partnership, is in the form of subordinated units. We will continue to consolidate the operations of the Publications Group with a minority interest charge to reflect the 25.8% ownership interest of the Fund. The dilution gain or loss related to the transaction has not been determined. In October 2005, the Limited Partnership and its parent company CanWest MediaWorks Inc. obtained new senior credit facilities in the amounts of $1 billion and $500 million, respectively. $517.0 net proceeds from the issuance of the Limited Partnership units to the Fund, $400.6 million in proceeds from the parent company facility, and $822.5 million in proceeds of Limited Partnership credit facilities were utilized to repay debt and associated cross currency interest rate swaps, resulting in a net reduction of consolidated debt of $400.0 million. While we continue to have substantial involvement in the operation of the Limited Partnership, its operations are directed and governed by a separate management and Board of Directors. The ongoing relationships between the Limited Partnership, the Fund and us are subject to a number of agreements. secondary source: http://www.globeadvisor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/gam/20050909/RCANWEST09 Thee IPO financial fact Propectus sept05 lists owed to affliated company 2.2 billion; on trust balance sheet once issued lists 825 millioin in long term debt attached. Buy-out (expropriation) p.23 nov08 sedar CanWest b) On July 10, 2007, Canwest Limited Partnership (formerly CanWest MediaWorks Limited Partnership) (“Limited Partnership”) redeemed its Class A partnership units, representing the 25.8% minority interest, for cash consideration of $495 million plus acquisition costs of $2 million. The acquisition was accounted for as a step purchase. The fair value of acquired assets exceeded the cost of the transaction and, accordingly, the excess was allocated on a pro-rata basis as a reduction in the amount of non-monetary assets acquired. As a result of the transaction, property and equipment was decreased by $6.7 million, circulation, subscribers and other customer relationships were increased by $48.7 million, newspaper mastheads were increased by $77.4 million, pension and post retirement liabilities were increased by $22.0 million and future tax liabilities were increased by $17.9 million. secondary source: http://www.thestar.com/business/companies/canwest/article/706527--convergence-fever-buried-canwest Article quote,"In 2007, with media valuations nosediving everywhere one looked, Asper decided that offers ranging from $1 billion to $1.5 billion for its stake in Australian TV broadcaster Network Ten weren't quite rich enough. Under duress last month, CanWest unloaded its stake for a mere $630 million. Later in 2007, when cash preservation was in order, Leonard spent $495 million to buy back one-quarter of its newspaper income trust." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haida chieftain (talk • contribs) 19:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC) It seems you have learned nothing from your block. Reread the comments on your talk page and post something constructive without all of this business jargon.  єmarsee  • Speak up! To Emarsee; Please post those acquistions of CanWest from this Decade please. What other acquistions please? Emarsee wrote,What other major acquisitions have Canwest made besides WIC, Southam, and Alliance Atlantis? The major acquisitions are already listed. Double talk. What acquistions??? WIC acquistion pre 2000. http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/News-opinion-and-commentary/CanWest-leaps-ahead-of-CTV-CanWest-buying-back-newspaper-income-trust.html Southam:November, 2000 the Southam Newspapers company was broken up with the print media holdings and the Southam Newspapers name being sold to Canwest. Please comment of wiki ruling on highlighting CanWest billion net income lose, while obstructing an almost equal goodwill writedown fact. Emarsee offered this info to sway readers.I'm not sure what you mean by their "hypothetical billion goodwill write down", either they have made a write down or they haven't. Show a reliable secondary source that proves the write down. If you can't prove it, it doesn't go into the article Emarsee, are you suggesting to others that there was no goodwill writedown, but if there is that wiki should reference it. So reference it. Thank you. Accounting reality, CanWest balance sheet already stocked up with goodwill tax equity credits; and therefore did not need any significant acquisitions, to acquire more goodwill. --Haida chieftain (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC) What the hell does WIC's acquisition matter if it predates the 2000s? It was approved in 2000. Name me some other acquisitions Canwest has ever made. Yes I am saying that there was no goodwill write down, if there is show me a secondary source? Why isn't the MSM or even blogs covering the hypothetical write down? Are you just fabricating facts? Where is the proof? Show me some proof, you have failed to do so. Again, you have learned absolutely nothing from your block.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 00:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Emarsee, should the wiki encyclopedia post the CanWest Newspaper 2005 IPO, and the buyback of Canadian newspaper IPO in 2007? Sham that Canadian investors invested 550 million for 25.8% of the newspaper corporation attached with a debt of 850 million plus; now CanWest is giving 100% of Canadian newpaper empire, to any group that will take this 850 million debt on. IPO crisis in Canada (and Zealand.) CanWest Zealand IPO a rip off downunder; wiki also obligated to disclose Zealand CanWest IPO experience. --Haida chieftain (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC) What are you even trying to say? There is no need for Wikipedia to mention anything if it's not SOURCED by a RELIABLE SOURCE. Fringe theories that you're advocating do NOT belong on Wikipedia, it's not Wikipedia's duty to cater to fringe theories.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 02:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Goodwill writedown secondary source, suggests that wiki's highlighted CanWest's 2008 annual net income fact is false

Soapboxing and synth
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[Finding of Fact: wiki's Canwest 08 net income correct; but there are issues with misleading uninformed readers on Canada's newspapers profitability.]--Haida chieftain (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC) http://www.thestar.com/business/companies/canwest/article/616227--canwest-loses-1-44b-on-publishing-writedownQuote, "Canwest (TSX: CGS) reported a net loss of $1.44 billion in its latest quarter (quote from april9.09), including a $1.19-billion writedown of assets, mostly in its newspapers." Sourced, but how to fit it in? Wiki is wrong in stating that CanWest net income of minus 1.04 billion for 2008. CanWest filing april 9 09, that the minus 1.4 billion income declaration was for one quarter. CanWest actually wrote off more hypotheical goodwill, to avoid declaring a profit in the next quarter, going into the shareholder expropration filing, to off set a currency gain of 368 million. (Debt in US dollars, increase in Canadian currency decreases debt somewhat, reduced though by the puts on the Canadian dollars, the newspaper vendor financing deal, required the buyer of Canada's newspapers purchase, (turned Canada's newspapers into a hedge fund putting the Canada's dollar. Is !@#$#. aka the 177 million foreign currrency swaps loss. Quote Sedar filing "For the three months ended February 28, 2009, the Company reported a net loss of $1.44 billion – including a non-cash $1.19 billion write-down of goodwill, intangible assets and property and equipment. Approximately 83% of the write-down relates to Canwest’s Publishing operations. For the six months ended February 28, 2009, the Company reported a net loss of $1.47 billion." Following peroid. http://www.canwestglobal.com/investors/investor_documents/F09/q3/Canwest%20Q3%2009%20Release.pdf For the three months ended May 31, 2009, the Company reported a net loss of $110 million – including a non-cash $247 million impairment of goodwill in Canwest’s Publishing operations, interest rate and foreign currency swap losses of $177 million and foreign exchange gains of $368 million primarily related to the foreign currency gains associated with the U.S. dollar debt that is no longer hedged. For the nine months ended May 31, 2009, the Company reported a net loss of $1.58 billion. Wiki highlights CanWest's net income for 2008 at minus 1.04 billion. Source please. TexasAndroid, what was CanWest's 2008 net income? --Haida chieftain (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Net loss for FY 2008 was $1,040 million, per TMX (MarketWatch).[2] —C.Fred (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC) CanWest profitable. CanWest operations made 74 million last quarter, almost a million a day, so why are CanWest shares being expropriated? CanWest's balance sheet declares profit for Nov 09 quarter (Sedar: filed Jan 14 2010 Interim financial statements.) "In October 2009, the Company sold its controlling interest in Ten Holdings (note 9). The Company recorded a gain of $570 million on the sale of these shares," "For the three months ended November 30, 2009 Net earnings from continuing operations 74,481 Gain from sale of discontinued operations(note 16) 578,059 - Net earnings from discontinued operations 578,059 Net earnings for the period 652,540" [Note CanWest year end Aug, so 09 annual balance sheet numbers, do not include sale gain of 570 million, on 600 million plus sale of Austrialia TV disclosure network.] Your own source states that the 2008 profit statement is a 1.04 billioin loss, includes a 1,109 million special goodwill writedown, so no goodwill/intangible assets writedowns, have real profit. http://cxa.marketwatch.com/TSX/en/Market/companyfinancials.aspx?type=AnnIncomeStmt&symb=CGS&sid=48409 Other Special Charges -1,109 Income Before Taxes (EBT) -1,004.71 Unethical to withhold the special writedown of 1.109 billion, while highlighting the 2008 1.04 billion loss. Also, please respect that, CanWest has issued a profit statement for 2009. Minus 1.6 billion (massive hypotheical writedowns trick repeated). 2008 profit statment outdated anyways. --Haida chieftain (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Even if the goodwill writedown is an extraordinary item (which it shouldn't be), it's part of net income. Trying to exclude it from the summary net income number is misleading. Should it be highlighted in the text of the article? Yes, arguably—in which case, we should also point out that it's reducing overstated intangibles on the balance sheet. Net income has a specific meaning, regardless of what you think should be included or excluded, and amortization/impairment of goodwill is a component of net income. —C.Fred (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC) CanWest 2009 net income statement sourced directly from CanWest 2009 Annual Report page 32 (Audited) CANWEST GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS CORP. page32 (Under Creditor Protection Proceedings as of October 6, 2009 – Notes 1 and 4) CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF LOSS FOR THE YEARS ENDED AUGUST 31 (In thousands of Canadian dollars except as otherwise noted) 2009 2008 (Revised notes 3 and 21) Revenue 2,867,459 3,126,582 Operating expenses 2,405,452 2,554,622 Restructuring expenses (note 8) 72,158 20,715; Broadcast rights write-downs 48,756 - Retirement plan curtailment expense (note 24) 31,327 - 309,766 551,245 Amortization of intangible assets 7,978 9,040 [How does an intangible depreciate? Yes standard, turns some earnings into a loss, reducing taxes. Creates an off balance sheet asset. Nevertheless, balance sheet not a tax return, and therefore use is arbitrary.] Amortization of property and equipment 104,590 113,539 (hypothetical somewhat, tax formula, not actual, also depreciation issues with past dollars, and objects depreciated nearly 100%/ not out of cash / amortization way to earn cash and say loss in tax lingo.) Other amortization 412 379 Operating income 196,786 428,287 Interest expense (324,672) (328,517) Accretion of long-term liabilities (note 14) (109,196) (67,560) Interest income (note 7) 2,445 21,946 Interest rate and foreign currency swap losses (notes 12 and 25) (150,327) (53,991) Foreign exchange gains (losses) (note 25) 277,952 (10,219) Investment gains, losses and write-downs (note 20) 52,512 (31,652) Impairment loss on property and equipment (note 9) (32,418) - Impairment loss on intangible assets (note 11) (226,341) (408,484) Impairment loss on goodwill (note 10) (1,158,339) (596,895) (1,471,598) (1,047,085) Provision for (recovery of) income taxes (note 19) 165,181 (23,318) Loss before the following (1,636,779) (1,023,767) Minority interest 3 (42,439) Interest in earnings of equity accounted affiliates (note 7) 1,181 39,989 Realized currency translation adjustments (718) 850 Net loss from continuing operations (1,636,313) (1,025,367) Loss from sale of discontinued operations (note 21) (8,755) (6,970) Loss from discontinued operations (note 21) (44,201) (9,806) Net loss from discontinued operations (52,956) (16,776) Net loss for the year 2009 (1,689,269) 2008(1,042,143) Ask, please, can Wiki's CanWest net income statement be current. Believe should include a summary from 08 and special writedowns -- and summary of 09 special writedowns -- and the first quarter for 2010 (quarter ending Nov09)for CanWest declaring a quarterly profit be disclosed. Thanks, a CanWest shareholder. --Haida chieftain (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC) In response to your question, yes, it should be brought current—i.e., updated with audited FY09 numbers. If you provide a link to the statement, I can update it. MarketWatch doesn't have the '09 annual yet. A summary from '08 and breakout of the writedowns might fit in the prose. I can't say without looking a little closer at how the financials are discussed in the article. The 1Q10 profit might warrant a mention, especially if it's their first quarterly profit in a while. —C.Fred (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Wiki's source, the TSX, sources, combines disclosure of special depreciations, when disclosing net loss. Reproducing net loss disclosure material, absent the orginal context, disclosing the large hypotheical write downs, misinforms. CanWest shareholders made an operating profit in the quarter of their Chapter 11 is noteworthy and special; result of huge streamlining and cost cutting measures, and not printing my local paper on Monday, for example. http://www.irwebreport.com/perspectives/2006/feb/sedars-captcha.htm Stock market issue. Best if, Canadian Securities filings (SEDAR) allowed web users ~ to web link ~ to web accounting filings. Quote,"Before Jan 06 on SEDAR, investors looking at Canada's public company web financial filings did not have to agree to a terms of use, and enter a captcha [a sequence of letters and numbers, a security code] to gain access to Canada's public company accounting materials. [This was not a decision of securities regulators, nor the government.] The new requirement also acts as a disincentive for companies to provide direct links to individual filings. Such links save investors the time of digging through reams of poorly labeled and unsorted files in the regulatory database to find documents like prospectuses." Inotherwords, only can link to SEDARhttp://www.sedar.com/ --Haida chieftain (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC) CanWest webpage, links financials http://www.canwestglobal.com/investors/default.asp & http://www.canwestglobal.com/investors/2009_earnings_reports.asp http://www.canwestglobal.com/investors/investor_documents/F10/q1/Canwest_Q1_2010_Release.pdf 1st Quarter Results News Release quotes Operating profit up 20% and operating expenses down 15% WINNIPEG Canwest Global Communications Corp. today reported stronger financial results for the first quarter of its 2010 fiscal year ... Excluding the CRTC Part II fees and other non-recurring items, operating profit increased 29% from $137 million last year to $176 million. Beauty, news release from CanWest states that for 09, CanWest had an operating profit.CanWest "not" a bankrupt company. Toronto Star newspaper source says as fact, that CanWest has 100 million in interest left outstanding, from May 09 to now; CanWest made 52 milion in unnecessary interest payments on its 13.5% bonds -- and repaid more than half a billion in principle to certain bondholders. It is a concern for shareholders, and fraud [Banker rule, debt reductions, proper to state that debt reduced by 1.1 billion and no interest owed; and not 1.2 billion debt reduction and 100 million interest due, equivalent], that more than half a billion in principle was paid down, while 100 million in interest due was left outstanding! Interest due fact, secondary source, Toronto Star newspaper. http://www.thestar.com/business/companies/canwest/article/749430--asper-tries-to-stop-fast-sale-of-canwest-papers Quote, "[Canada's Scotia Bank] also points out that CanWest LP is behind on at least $100 million in payments on various loans since last May and that the secured lenders, which have the right to recall their loans at any time, have been more than patient." CanWest is a profitable company regardless of what wiki's net income states. & Secondary source for 2009 net loss statement http://www.your-story.org/canwest-global-communications-corp-reports-fourth-quarter-and-fiscal-year-end-2009-results-60206/ Quote, "For the three months ended August 31, 2009, revenues were $624 million compared to $721 million for the same period last year. Operating profit for the fourth quarter before restructuring and impairment expenses was $52 million compared to $60 million a year earlier. For the quarter, the Company reported a net loss of $111 million or a loss of $0.62 per share. Respecting readers and investors, and Canadian National Security, Wiki has a duty to highlight that CanWest ran an operating profit in 09. --Haida chieftain (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry, but it's becoming more obvious to me that you're attempting to edit this article with an agenda. A few comments ago, you mentioned that you're a shareholder, which means you have a conflict of interest in the article. In your previous comment, you've implied either that management has grossly misreported the debt payments and/or paid money out of the company improperly. The Wikipedia article is not an analysis the company's financial statement. What financial information it presents is summary. If analysis or commentary is warranted, it should be based on analysis made in secondary sources—not cherrypicking information you think should be highlighted from a Canwest release on PRWeb. As for the Toronto Star story, while it mentioned that CanWest is $100M behind on interest payments, it doesn't mention the principal paydown at all, so all that can be concluded from that source is that CanWest is in default on its loans to the tune of $100M in back interest. There's no mention of that debt paydown, no mention of the intangible impairments. —C.Fred (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Referencing Operating Net Income is not cherrypicking. Count it. CanWest 1st quarter is gazetted. Reported by two primary sources, and in newspapers, therefore wiki cannot censor Canadians from inserting this sourced information in CanWest encyclopedia portrait. Please Edit it, is welcome. Secondary source, Canada's top financial newspaper, and CanWest paper, reported http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2026114 Quote: "[Sale of Austrialian media disclosure network] also eliminates some $582-million in debt tied to the Australian TV network, raising the total value Canwest can erase from its overall debt to more than $1.2-billion. Before the Ten deal, Canwest held about $3.8-billion of debt on its balance sheet." Nice, 1.2 billion in debt less 4 billion!? [Suggests wiki's CanWest article citing that Austrialian media network sold for A682milliion is wanting, incomplete disclosure. Sold for 1.2 billion. Point of view to only disclose the cash component, and not the entire sale price.] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/canwest-posts-profit-on-ten-network-sale/article1430311/ Quote "Canwest Global Communications Corp. (CGS-T) said Wednesday it earned $652.5-million in its latest quarter, boosted by the sale of its stake in Ten Network Holdings in Australia." "As well, $4-billion in debts from earlier acquisitions produced mounting losses and made it impossible for Canwest to stay out of the red." Globe and Mail wrong to report in article that 4 billion in debt still on books at CanWest. (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC) More possible inaccurate CanWest financial numbers that article highlights. Wiki numbers:Operating income ▼ C$ -1.045 billion (2008) Total assets ▼ C$ 6.514 billion (2008) CanWest 2008 operating income minus 1.045 -- what? Operating income, by definition, should not include goodwill writedown, not GAAP. Wiki's dictionary states operating income is Earnings before Interest and Taxes (EBIT); Therefore, how was operating income minus 1.04 billion? Please explain this reference. And total assets shrink in 2008 by 6.5 billion? Not acceptable. Updating to 2009. --Haida chieftain (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2010 CanWest 1.6 billion 09 loss complex. Note, CanWest operating income is after interest and depreciation costs. Wiki's operating income definition qualifies operating income as sometimes used as EBIT. In an Audited Financial Statement, operating income term is after interest and deprecitation. CanWest: Operating income 196,786 (2009) 428,287 (2008) CANWEST GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS CORP. 2009 CONSOLIDATED —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haida chieftain (talk • contribs) 03:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Operating income is EBIT, not EBITDA. Accordingly, the amortization of intangibles is included in operating income. The figure of C$(1.472B) is per the financial statements at Google Finance.[3] —C.Fred (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Did I mention one of the problems with intermediate measures like operating income is the definition of "operating"? I'm going to use the company's classifications, from the audited financial statements, rather than Google's. I'd provide a link, but as noted above, SEDAR doesn't allow direct links in. —C.Fred (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC) CanWest operating income is not minus, editing red highlight. http://www.canwestglobal.com/investors/investor_documents/F09/q4/CGCC_FS_Q4_2009_FINAL.pdf CanWest shareholders made a profit in 2008 of 100 million before taxes. (EBIT Canwest 428 million, minus interest 328 million, is a CanWest shareholder operating income for 08 of 100 million.) This being so, Wiki reported that CanWest shareholders lost 1 billion. Google discloses Canwest balance sheet particulars; Google gives the reader context; details goodwill, intangibles etc. Wiki does not provide context -- wish to add this context. Operating income 2009 statement. CanWest businesses operating income 196 million. Arbitrary expenes 09 allocated affect accounting story -- 72 million restructuring, 48 million broadcast rights write downs, pension curtailments. Note, CanWest shareholders have Cash and cash equivalents of 106 million at 2009 Aug year end. Add interest costs of 324 million and Canwest shareholder 09 operating income is minus 128 million. Note, amortization. Revenue 2,867,459 (09) 3,126,582 (08) Operating expenses 2,405,452 2,554,622 Restructuring expenses (note 8) 72,158 20,715 Broadcast rights write-downs 48,756 - Retirement plan curtailment expense (note 24) 31,327 - 309,766 551,245 Amortization of intangible assets 7,978 9,040 Amortization of property and equipment 104,590 113,539 Operating income 196,786 (09) 428,287 (08) Interest expense (324,672) (328,517)--Haida chieftain (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC) $197 million, rounding to the nearest million dollars. However, since operating income was $428 million the year before, income figure is correctly identified as a decline—although it is still income and not a loss. —C.Fred (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC It's what the reader reads, not what the author reads. Highlighting a profit in red, obligates wiki's CanWest article disclose that CanWest operating income in 2008 was 428 million. Canada can be proud that Canada's newspapers, and CanWest shareholder operations, ran these operating profits. Elen of Roads, what are your ideas on the wiki's listing the 2008 operating profit for CanWest at minus 1 billion, when in fact, a profit of 428 million? It's not a decrease from the past inaccerate posted 2008 number. Deserves mention in article, if not, why highlight an operating profit in red, not a loss. Welcome back to the debate. --Haida chieftain (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC) It's a profit, should not be in red. Other numbers in list, like total assets and total equity are not displayed with this red highlight ratio --Haida chieftain (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Per the instructions for the template: In the revenue, operating_income and net_income fields, you may include an indicator icon to indicate the change compared to the previous fiscal year; to avoid confusion, place the indicator before the number. Please note that this is not intended to reflect the actual numerical change in value, only the direction of change compared to the previous year. If no citable information is available for previous fiscal year data, please do not use an icon. All three of those fields can be compared against the prior year figures; all three declined. Accordingly, all three should be flagged as declining. I don't see a reason to cherry-pick and not highlight the operating income. —C.Fred (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Red highlight is a point of view. No necessary to add extra ratio detail on operating income. Source in a newspaper the operating income ratio difference, if not, would this not be original research? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.60.104.163 (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC) However, consensus is that it's a point of view that can be presented in the infobox. The prior year information is available the same place the current info came from: the financial statements are comparative. —C.Fred (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Operating and net income are both calculated by the accountants, and the calculated figures are shown in the cited reports. Plain sight is not original research - if both sets of figures are available and it is obvious just from looking that the figure for 2009 is less than that for 2008. Only if it is necessary to do calcs or other jiggery pokery to arrive at the figure to be compared, would it be original research. If consensus has agreed that a rise or fall in these figures can be highlighted in the template, then it does not constitute POV to do so. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC) The company was operating at a loss, even though its operating activities were profitable (before taxes, interest, and non-operating charges: C$197 million in 2009, vs. C$428 million in 2008). Two operating results for same period? Special writedowns to goodwill, is not an operating expense. CanWest operating income already cherry picked down by CanWest auditor: pension adjustments (not only from 09); broadcast writedown (an asset writedown); and restructuring (a capital investment, investing in intangibles). Confuses readers to mention two operating results. Loses are a balance sheet, bookvalue adjustment, one time write downs, independent of operating results. So if independent from operating results, why term operating?--Haida chieftain (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Source? Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC) I've reworded it, to say the income statements recognized net losses, to avoid the verb "operating." Good point: that was ill-advised word cohice. —C.Fred (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC) ? http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2026114 CanWest pulls secondary source web link. [Canada's top business newspaper,our Wall Street Journal] CanWest Financial Post Quote: "[Sale of Austrialian media disclosure network] also eliminates some $582-million in debt tied to the Australian TV network, raising the total value Canwest can erase from its overall debt to more than $1.2-billion. Before the Ten deal, Canwest held about $3.8-billion of debt on its balance sheet." Seems CanWest numerious papers, in their numerious stories on CanWest still referrencing debt at 4 billion on occasion. (Error, note, if include operating liabilities, total liabilities 4.1 billion. Different.) Canadian newspapers in some of their articles, not all newspaper posts, are referring to CanWest's shareholder debt amount, as the same before and after TEN sale, at around 4 billion. CanWest newspapers fleece CanWest shareholders, easy to web link. --Haida chieftain (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

fact: Canada's newspapers final chapter with CanWest, being auctioned off, starting bid 950 million - next chapter in CanWest's voluntary shareholder expropriation filing

More Soapboxing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Secondary sources for great Canadian newspaper auction. http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&um=1&cf=all&ned=ca&hl=en&q=canwest%7Eauction%7Enewspapers http://www.thestar.com/business/companies/canwest/article/752419--trio-eyes-3-canwest-papers Quote. "The secured creditors have offered a "floor price" for the whole chain of $950 million," http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Creditors+back+Canwest+restructuring+plan/2488366/story.html Qutoe. "Under the proposal, Canwest LP's creditors - which include the country's five largest banks - are seeking bids on the division above what they are owed, or about $925 million. The sales process, being led by RBC Capital Markets, is expected to take 14 weeks. If a successful bid does not emerge, creditors plan to spin the assets into another company that they will own new equity in." http://www.canada.com/news/Canwest+publishing+group+sale+after+filing/2420298/story.html Quote. "Following court approval Friday, Canwest Limited Partnership's secured lenders — which together hold $953 million in debt — will solicit offers for the publishing division, which includes the National Post, 10 major city dailies including the Victoria Times Colonist, Vancouver Sun, Vancouver Province, Edmonton Journal, Calgary Herald, Saskatoon StarPhoenix, Regina Leader-Post, Windsor Star, Ottawa Citizen and Montreal Gazette." Selling 100% of CanWest's Canada's newspaper monopoly, for less than CanWest sold, 50.1% of TEN for, is theft. CanWest can recieve several hundred million, plus unload 1 billion in debt attached to new newspaper corporation, reduces debt 1.6 billiion. After Ten sale, CanWest debt 2.7 billion. Leaves only one billioin in debt; CanWest shareholer assets exceed this debt value. CanWest can attach debt, and sell its Canadian newspapers for cash. --Haida chieftain (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC) --199.60.104.59 (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Selling the newspapers for cash is exactly what's going on here. The secured creditors have basically already put in a bid of $950M, which is their portion of the debt. Other offers would clearly have to be above that amount, and ultimately, the board has some discretion to reject all offers. What's unclear is whether a winning bidder could assume the CanWest debt in the transaction or whether it would have to be paid off at the time of sale. —C.Fred (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Sweet CanWest editorial controversies fact. CanWest censored debate on Bank of Canada's balance sheet pratices. Bank of Canada's Balance sheet from 07 to 08: assets on longer equal bank notes in circulation. One of the biggest economic stories in Canada's history. http://www.google.com/search?q=haidachieftain%7Ebank+of+clearance&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1 G20 believes that a government has the right to borrow interest free from their own federal reserve. Bank of Canada 08 balance sheet list 53 billion (change that 78 billion) in assets -- and list assets Canadian treasuries and bonds 40 billion. http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/annual/2008/finstate08.pdf 08 78,583.5 07 53,896.8 assets, Bank of Canada first moment. Wow. Bank of Canada assets increase 50 percent from 2007 to 2008, evolution, and Canada's newspapers said zip. Newspapers sourcing that increase includes that assets of Bank of Canada Securities purchased under resale agreements (note 4a) 35,326.9 in 08, from 4 billion in 07 is not referencing Bank of Canada's balance sheet 50 percent increase. [Walking on the Moon.] Fundimental change in Bank of Canada's Balance sheet from 07 to 08: Federal Reserve total assets on longer equals bank notes in circulation. LIABILITIES AND CAPITAL Bank notes in circulation (note 9) 53,731.3 50,565.2 Deposits (note 10) Government of Canada 23,604.0 1,970.4 Members of the Canadian Payments Association 25.9 501.5 Other deposits 783.3 509.2 24,413.2 2,981.1 Other liabilities (note 11) 226.1 195.8 78,370.6 53,742.1 assets from 07 to 08; 25 billion increase. http://blog.taragana.com/business/2010/01/16/newspaper-britains-treasury-chief-says-uk-wont-impose-obama-style-tax-on-banks-21415/ Qoute," President Obama is proposing a tax of 0.15 percent on the liabilities of large financial institutions in a bid to recoup at least $90 billion spent rescuing the sector from collapse." Canada's position is that Canada's banks will not be taxed. [Canada has CMHC morgage insurance for home buyers already.) Canada is creating the Canadian Federal Reserve, and transfering 10 billion to each of Canada's major banks. This is the position of Canada's newspapers. If the buyer of Canada's newspapers has issues with this, then appreciate that the seller does have the right to pick the buyer. [Lack of debate of newspaper buyer's view of point on editorial content in great Canadian newspaper auction.] --199.60.104.59 (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yahoo reports that CanWest 09 operating profits before restructuring, impairment and other one time expenses is $462 million.

soapboxing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Highlighted in previosly discussion. Operating income 2009 statement. CanWest businesses has arbitrary expenses added into the operating income. Arbitrary expenses 09 allocated affect accounting story -- 72 million restructuring, 48 million broadcast rights write downs, pension curtailments. Note, CanWest shareholders have Cash and cash equivalents of 106 million at 2009 Aug year end. WINNIPEG Businesswire. http://ca.news.finance.yahoo.com/s/27112009/34/biz-f-business-wire-canwest-global-communications-corp-reports-fourth-quarter-fiscal.html Quote, " WINNIPEG--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Canwest Global Communications Corp. (nov27,009) today reported operating profits before restructuring, impairment and other one time expenses of $462 million for its fiscal year ended August 31, 2009. The Company undertook extensive operational restructuring initiatives resulting in substantially reduced operating expenses during the year. The Company’s operations are well positioned to benefit from an improving Canadian economy." "For the fiscal year ended August 31, 2009, the Company’s revenues decreased 8% to $2.87 billion and its operating profits before restructuring, impairment and other one time expenses decreased by 25% to $462 million. For the twelve month period the Company reported a net loss of $1.69 billion including $1.42 billion in non-cash impairment losses on goodwill, intangible assets and property and equipment, interest rate and foreign currency swap losses of $150 million and foreign exchange gains of $278 million." "In fiscal 2009, the Company responded with restructuring and workforce reduction initiatives which reduced operating expenses by approximately $213 million, of which the Canadian operations accounted for $141 million." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haida chieftain (talk • contribs) 18:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I don't dispute the number Yahoo is reporting, but that number is not clear from the face of the financials. It is disclosed in the full annual report, though MD&A says this about the operating income before amortization: "Operating income before amortization is not a recognized measure of financial performance under GAAP. Investors are cautioned that operating income before amortization should not be construed as an alternative to net earnings (loss) determined in accordance with GAAP as an indicator of our performance. Our method of calculating operating income before amortization may not be comparable to similarly titled measures used by other companies." (p. 12) It then presents a completely different number, $309.8 million. Regardless, that number is not "operating income" in the GAAP definition of the term. —C.Fred (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Source request for CanWest owning dozens Canadian TV stations. Quote, "CanWest selling twenty tv stations to Shaw." [Note that CanWest closed other TV stations on top of this.] Does anyone know the size of Shaw's investment? Reported at 45 million? http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gS8oY-r6-N4ZCwbvWp9sl-mDlBcg --Haida chieftain (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Canwest only owns ELEVEN conventional television stations and 23 speciality channels. And where did you get your $45 million figure from? It's reported to be at $65 million. You said The company was already the largest owner of Canadian local TV stations, which isn't true at all.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 19:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC CanWest owning eleven conventional television stations differs from what the CRTC has listed. Emarsee what is the date of your list, and what is the source? Note that the CRTC CanWest TV list was longer before, Victoira CHEK TV station and others off the list. CanWest's TV stations http://www.crtc.gc.ca/ownership/cht14A.pdf and CTV's list of TV stations http://www.crtc.gc.ca/ownership/cht209a.pdf Note CRTC ownership diagrams do not disclose mult voting shares structures, or foreign debt obligations and agreements, by these Canadian companies http://www.crtc.gc.ca/ownership/eng/title_org.htm Compromise, maybe rather then saying which is the largest, both giants, edit article to say one of the largest owners of Canadian TV stations. Agree? My source is what the own today. Even with the E! stations added, Canwest would only have 15 stations. Not the largest owner of local stations in Canada.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 21:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Quote, "OTTAWA — Telecommunications firm Shaw Communications announced Friday it is buying some 20 Canadian television stations from beleaguered media titan Canwest Global Communications." http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gS8oY-r6-N4ZCwbvWp9sl-mDlBcg--Haida chieftain (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC) You don't understand what conventional stations. Let me explain it to you, conventional are those with an over the air transmitter. Canwest has never owned the most stations, not now, not before the closure of the E! stations. єmarsee  • Speak up! 00:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

What are the objections to adding the purchase price Golden Tree etc paid for CanWest? Standard disclosure.

Secondary sourced and primary sourced. [[4]] Why should this purchase price detail be censored? It is asserted that not to mention this, is a lie by ommission.

Addition to Atricle CanWest's major creditors - GoldenTree Asset, Beach Point Capital and Toronto's West Face Capital – have already tripled their original investment in the company, according to Goldman Sachs. CanWest's senior unsecured debentures were traded for as little as 15 cents on the dollar over the past year. Wall Street hedge fund Angelo Gordon has been buying CanWest debt 70 cents on the dollar since it filed for creditor protection in October. [5] Weclome edits & rewrites & debate. --Haida chieftain (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the source doesn't say anything like this. What it says is:-

• Angelo Gordon & Co. has been buying CanWest debt since it filed for creditor protection in October
• CanWest's bonds currently command about 70 cents on the dollar
• CanWest's bonds at one point traded for as little as 15 cents on the dollar.

What it doesn't say is

• CanWest's major creditors - GoldenTree Asset, Beach Point Capital and Toronto's West Face Capital – have already tripled their original investment in the company - they took money out, not put it in
• according to Goldman Sachs. It says nothing about any allegation made by GS

The article is about one or more new players arriving and hoovering up Canwest debt, in the belief that the value of their holdings will rise sharply as the economy turns upwards and the parent company restructures. It makes only peripheral remarks about the Goldman Sachs vs Canwest argument Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Goldman Sachs vs Canwest argument. Quote, "Goldman Sachs & Co. is attempting to undermine the power of U.S. distressed debt funds that control CanWest Global Communications Corp. This increasingly bitter battle highlights the key role that New York vulture funds and a New York-based investment bank play in a Canadian media company that faces federal restrictions on foreign ownership. Goldman is trying to sidestep CanWest's creditors by opening direct restructuring talks with Mr. Asper and Hap Stephen, the company's court-appointed chief restructuring officer." [6]--Haida chieftain (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality control. Please source. Article quote, "Nevertheless, some analysts expect that the conglomerate will sell assets or be broken up entirely as the restructuring process continues, in part because the publishing division has a separate set of lenders." The newspaper vendor financing bonds are demanding their principle back, based on pre tax earning of CanWest, so how extactly are the bonds not from the publishing division too? They are. CanWest needed to file to transfer ownership, but did not want to sell their Canadian newspaper and TV assets, so the voluntary Oct Ontario filing to restructure, tried this. Bad advice. Asper quote, ""I profoundly disagree with an early [January] CCCA filing," he wrote. "I am particularly concerned that such a filing will result in undue and unnecessary harm to the stakeholders." [7] --Haida chieftain (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You're Canadian, right? Is your first language French? Because it certainly doesn't appear to be English. Could you possibly try speaking to us, rather than posting a mixture of rants and random quotes. Thank you Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Starting date of public company. http://www.canwest.com/media/history.asp --Haida chieftain (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion. Important. Do the 97% bondholder share expropriation math translate that, for every hundred block of shares, a shareholder keeps 2.3 shares. 50 to 1. Or for every hundred shares, shareholders get one share, and bondholders get 98 shares, and the extra share is disgarded. 98 to 1. Big different. Got to know. Thanks wiki. --Haida chieftain (talk) 00:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Neither, I think, although I'm not certain, as both the regulations and the business jargon are different in Europe. If this were a European operation, shareholders would keep their existing shares, but they would in effect become valueless. Whoever is involved in the refinance of the company would directly own 97% of what would in effect be a new company's assets. However, as I say, the bankruptcy protection regulations are different over here, so this may not be the correct answer. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yahoo and Google CanWest stock quote still off line for CanWest. http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=cgs.to —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haida chieftain (talk • contribs) 17:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yahoo has updated its ticker symbol. Try http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=CGS.V instead. —C.Fred (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_C/threadview?m=tm&bn=100498&tid=1&mid=1&frt=2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.60.104.100 (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Stick to sourced facts

soapboxing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Haida chieftain, it's hard enough to figure out what you're saying without you portraying purely personal opinion as fact [8]. The fee for carriage decision has nothing to do with copyrights and the source you provided does not mention copyrights once. --NeilN talk to me 22:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Cable companies sell Canwest and Atlantis copyrighted material without paying. Word smiths have avoided the words copyright infringement, as the cable companies and satellite are touchy about being called hypocrites. Why are Canadian TV signals not copyrighted? Never, ever in issued statements on copyright when airing certain material was an exception granted Shaw or any other cable company. Fee for carriage decision issue must be disclosed to the reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haida chieftain (talk • contribs) 22:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Why does it need to be disclosed, especially if we don't know whether it was part of the purchase price that Shaw paid for the stations? —C.Fred (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC) There is no copyright infringement because there are no laws or regulations stating that cable/satellite companies must pay fee for carriage. Please stop making stuff up. --NeilN talk to me 23:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC) FFC was never about copyrights. I don't understand your point made there. AFAIK, the whole debate was about local content, not copyrights. As others users have mentioned, stop making stuff up.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 00:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC) It's called private property. Go copy a movie on TV and sell it, not going to, why, cause there is copyright. TV networks create a variety of orginal material that is private property. Copyright is an accepted economic concept. The FBI warning on movies does not grant cable companies an exemption, or stop at the border. Not understanding, Canada does not have the power to alter copyright law. International copyright prohibitions outlaw selling movies without permission. Welcome the debate. --Haida chieftain (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC) The copyrights of movies and the FBI warnings have absolutely nothing to do the the Canadian Fee For Carriage debate, which is about private broadcasters asking cable companies to pony up money, just so they can continue to operate the station -- run the equipment, buy additional programming, pay their employees, etc., during times when less people are watching and less ad dollars are being made. It has nothing to do with copyrights or royalties. Provide us with the actual source to your findings or leave us alone -- your choice. -- azumanga (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC) azumanga is correct. Please stop adding unsourced POV statements to the article. Incidentally, every country is free to have their own laws regarding copyright and sign whatever treaties they choose to. But again, you have not come up with a single source that says copyright infringement has occurred. This is not the place to debate it. --NeilN talk to me 01:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Please source. Private broadcasters asking cable companies to pony up money, just so they can continue to operate the station -- run the equipment, buy additional programming, pay their employees, etc., during times when less people are watching and less ad dollars are being made. It has nothing to do with copyrights or royalties. How is funding to help make material, not about copyright. Pay to access, is copyright. [9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.60.104.100 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC) No, azumanga does not have to source it because he's not proposing an addition to the article. You however, are, and the text needs to be sourced properly. Hint: Google search results are not acceptable. Also, please log in and tone down your edit summaries --NeilN talk to me 01:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Straight from the horses' mouth. Local TV Matters is a campaign launched by local Canadian television broadcasters with a focus on the protection and preservation of local television for viewers across Canada. Members include CTV, /A\, Global, CBC, CHEK NEWS, V and NTV, with thousands of supporters across the country. The campaign encourages all Canadians to share their voice and support local television. It has NOTHING to do with copyrights and everything to do with local content.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 01:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Canada is a member of the World Trade Organization, and has signed numerious trade agreements, Canada has an obligation to settle Shaw's debt to Canwest shareholders for copyright infringement, before Shaw can buy CanWest. [10] Therefore yes, the copyrights of movies and the FBI warnings [are part of the] the Canadian Fee For Carriage debate. Cable companies selling moives coded in an electric current, cannot excuse themselves from International Law [11] by saying the owner of the asset does not have to be paid, as their only copying their TV signals assets, not pirating TV signals, when selling CanWests' video archive assets. --Haida chieftain (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Again, your very odd take on how copyright is involved in the FFC debate is irrelevent unless you can find reliable sources specifically discussing Canwest, FFC, and copyrights. --NeilN talk to me 19:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC) I agree with NeilN. There is a high degree of synthesis to go from the FFC debate to saying that Shaw owes money to Canwest for the infringement of local newscasts and other programming that Canwest owned rights to. I'm not convinced that this applies here at all; it should not be mentioned in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC) A word from CanWest's CEO, "Canwest Global Corp. president Leonard Asper blamed the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission for setting ground rules that have impoverished broadcasters and put cable firms in the penthouse." "Canwest, which has been granted bankruptcy protection for its TV operation, is the last of the major broadcasters to appear before the CRTC asking that the regulator set conditions that would compel cable and satellite operators to pay for TV signals." " "The trouble is, making such a decision would leave it open for the carriers to charge customers as much as $10 a month to cover the extra costs, which they have said they would do. To which, said Canwest regulatory affairs executive Charlotte Bell, the CRTC should show some spine. “You have to pull your weight to keep this under control,” she told chairman Konrad von Finckenstein. As he has on each day since the hearings began Monday, von Finckenstein again stressed that he is interested in a solution that won’t involve a rate increase for subscribers to cable and satellite services. One of the worries for the CRTC is that the Conservative government has put the regulator on notice it will not tolerate charging consumers more." [12] CanWest directly states how important this issue is. CanWest says this is the reason for bankrupcy, the yet point of view in article says acquisitions. The wiki canwest article should mention theFee-for-carriage dispute. A company has a right to be paid for its widgets. Canadian TV companies in a cartel move, demanded that cable companies respect their US purchase of rights. "He notes that CTV and Canwest have quietly asked the CRTC to order cable and satellite companies to establish a new policy of "program deletion." The new policy (which is supported in a Toronto Star piece today) would mean that when a Canadian broadcaster buys the Canadian rights to a U.S. program, the U.S. broadcast would be blocked in Canada for a seven-day window." [13] CRTC chairman Konrad von Finckensteinis on notice for violating US Law. --Haida chieftain (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Now that Canwest has testified in the FFC debate, that testimony might warrant being mentioned, though it probably needs to be limited to just that they have testified and a short summary of the testimony. I don't think this article needs to be a retelling of the full debate, however. And while a company has a right to be paid for its widgets, keep in mind how much the company is charging for its widgets right now. Unless there's a British-style license fee in Canada, they aren't charging anything. As for the second paragraph, the program deletion is way too tangential to be mentioned here. Also, what US law has von Finckenstein violated? No such law is mentioned anywhere in the cited article. —C.Fred (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Since I said it needs to be mentioned, I've added the following text to the article: Canwest executives testified in the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission hearings over fee-for-carriage, requesting that the commission force cable and satellite companies to pay for their signals without passing the fees on to their subscribers. In his testimony, Canwest president Leonard Asper blamed the current rules for the poor financial condition of Canada's broadcast television stations.<ref>"'Pull your weight' Canwest tells CRTC". Marketing Magazine. Rogers Publishing. November 19, 2009. Retrieved February 16, 2010.</ref> I've gone ahead and boldly added it, but if it's problematic to anybody, feel free to remove it, and we'll discuss it further here. —C.Fred (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Participant note. Haida chieftain (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely. —C.Fred (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Multi-voting shares

If CNN had multi voting shares, would it not be an essential fact? --Ravenfeathers (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us&q=canwest&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq= Canwest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIn his testimony, Canwest president Leonard Asper blamed the current rules for the poor financial condition of Canada's broadcast television stations. --199.60.104.147 (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

We can't use Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia...... Find a reliable source for the multivote and then add it, until then no need to add even more unsourced information to an already pretty poorly sourced article. Nefariousski (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

straight.com mentions the existence of the multiple-vote shares:

"Each of the Asper siblings--Leonard, David, and Gail--owns 25,595,325 multiple voting shares, which give them control of the company.

"A legal agreement stipulates that the multiple voting shares cannot be sold for an amount greater than 115 percent of the value of subordinate voting shares in the event of a corporate takeover."[14]

However, this doesn't support that the shares existed at the time of the IPO nor that they were part of the IPO. It stands to reason that those shares were not offered to the general public, but I can't back that up specifically in this case.

While the multiple-vote shares might be mentioned in discussing the ownership, I don't see how it relates to the IPO. —C.Fred (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sale restrictions fact on multi voting shareson should restrict and limit deals that the multi voting shareholders can swing in a restructured Canwest. --199.60.104.147 (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Multi voting shares bought for 3 million equity. Single vote share equity bought with several hundred million. Obviously issued during IPO. If that is an issue will change reference to Canwest stock includes multi voting shares.--199.60.104.147 (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what the big deal about the multiple-vote shares is. The nonvoting shares are the more interesting issue—including the statement, by Canwest in an annual information filing, that non-Canadians may not buy subordinate voting shares. ([15], p. 57) —C.Fred (talk) 00:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Canada's newspaper monopoly for sale, so Atama, not wiki freezes canwest article, censorship

here thar be monsters
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I semi-protected the article again, for 2 weeks this time. The last time I protected it, it was for 3 days, and I thought someone was going to extend the protection but I guess that didn't happen. -- Atama頭 23:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Atama requested to comment in this discussion. Your a .... --199.60.104.147 (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Now now, mixing up your and you're is what gives other raving lunatics a bad name. Nefariousski (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Unable to deny this as an essential fact, makes Atama's protecting the Canwest article for mentioning the multi voting shares, vandalism. Call for wikipedia to bar Atama for vandalism. I'm not saying that it isn't an essential fact. But you need to PROVIDE SOURCES when adding said "fact" to the article. You do this by typing said information into the article and then adding at the end. Please read WP:RS to understand what constitutes a reliable source. Additionally it's not vandalism to revert unsourced and potentially false / libelous information from an article about a large company, it's common sense and supported by policy. Nefariousski (talk) 23:56 --199.60.104.147 (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Not denying something doesn't make it true. You might want to read Negative proof if you're having a hard time digesting the concept. Nefariousski (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC) If you insist on repeatedly trying to edit this article, Haida chieftain, it will probably be semi-protected indefinitely. In other words, unless you make an accepted appeal to have your block removed, and then follow Wikipedia's policies and procedures, you'll never be able to edit this article (or any other article) again. -- Atama頭 00:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC) On that note isn't there something about sockpuppetry / block evasion / 3RR violation etc... that warrants blocking this IP as well? Nefariousski (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Atama not good enough. You protected the canwest article without mentioning your view on the multi shares being an essential fact. Get up on that soapbox and debate. Earn the respect to protect the canwest article. No right to restrict Fred. C or emarsee or anybody else from adding to the article. --199.60.104.147 (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Actually, it is entirely appropriate for Atama to protect the article without commenting on the multiple-vote shares issue, since he's preventing an indefinitely-blocked user from editing the article. In situations like that, the more neutral the administrator involved, the better. (Tangent: The fact that you continually misspell my name is yet another giveaway that this IP is Haida chieftain evading his block again.) —C.Fred (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Canwest has sold their TV assets for shares in Atlantis, article should include this

Soapboxing/general disruption
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Essential fact: "Canwest, subject to regulatory approval, committed to combine its Canadian Television operations with Goldman Sachs Atlantis operations, prior to August 2011. In 2011, the Company’s and Goldman Sachs’ economic interest in the Combined Operations will be determined based on a formula which is based on the combined segment operating profit of CW Media and Canwest’s Canadian Television operations." Canwest debtholders concerned that TV assets of Canwest traded for stock in Atlantis: where's the revenue coming from to service debt, if TV stations sold? Better, Goldman Sachs' loan to Asper to buy shares in Canwest, Canwest does not pay dividends, no income to service this loan to buy new shares in Canwest. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/judge-slams-timing-of-canwest-bid/article1487721/ --199.60.104.147 (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC) All the article mentions is Goldman Sachs' attempt to keep Canwest from selling the broadcast division to Shaw. The rest of your assertions are unsourced. —C.Fred (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC) What broadcast division, already sold? It does read the TV stations are being bought by Goldman, right? page 10, 2009 Canwest annual report, page 10[16] In 2011, subject to any necessary regulatory approvals, we shall be required to effect the combination of CW Media and our Canadian television segment. The relative ownership interests in the combined company will be calculated based upon an enterprise value which is determined based on a multiple of twelve times the Combined Segment Operating Profit for the twelve months ended March 31, 2011 less the consolidated net indebtedness of CW Investments Co. at that time. --199.60.104.147 (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC) No. It reads that Goldman Sachs is objecting to the sale to Shaw. —C.Fred (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Not the article with the Judge, the above sourced quote from Canwest financials, page 10, saying we shall be required to combine TV assets with Atlantis for shares in Atlantis. Good scoop C.Fred, welcome to it. Soon, top wikipedia canwest internet link, for sure. --199.60.104.147 (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Atama what do you think? Atama protected the article, therefore has a duty to comment. --199.60.104.147 (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC) On reading that disclosure further, it looks like Canwest is obliged to buy back the derivatives from Goldman Sachs. It's a messy derivatives transaction, but that's what I'm seeing. —C.Fred (talk) 03:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Can we not just revert HC's talk page comments on sight? I don't think we should give any encouragement to a blocked editor. --NeilN talk to me 04:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Support: even the comments that make sense in English are never sourced - he sticks in a url to a 'source' but it never says what he insists must be added to the article or else Canada is going to implode or something. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Stalking horse

Haida Chieftan, the source you give only supports the first sentence. In the second sentence - the group who are protesting do not own 97% of Canwest's assets. The Oct 6th proposal would give 97% to share between ALL Canwest's creditors - the protesting group are only part of the overall creditor group. Also, there's no such thing as a 'stalking horse auction' The source refers to a 'Stalking horse offer, where the debtor cuts a deal with the most likely looking party before the auction, which enhances the value of their bid to the debtor. It's a legal process, the stalking horse offer should become the starting offer in the auction. The protesting group want to be allowed to take part in the auction and outbid the bank's stalking horse offer. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Restructuring and creditor protection

Is there a reason why the financial events of the past year are taking up such a large portion of the article? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Angelo Gordon hedge fund wishing CanWest's monopoly Canadian news disclosure infrastructure theirs. http://www.friends.ca/news-item/9088 Quote, "CanWest's bondholders include a number of Canadian and U.S. distressed debt funds, including West Face Capital in Toronto and New York-based Angelo, Gordon & Co. These funds have the firepower and expertise to complete the CanWest deal on their own, if RBC Dominion cannot come up with a potential investor, or if the offers are not deemed suitable." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haida chieftain (talk • contribs) 21:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh, yeah. Is that supposed to be an answer to my question? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

How about "because Haida Chieftan thinks it's very important". I'm not sure if we really understand why.......--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the addition until we do understand why. That section already smacks of WP:RECENTISM. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Vote to disclose that CanWest bonds sold below face value. IT IS ONE THING NOT TO MENTION IT, SOMETHING ELSE TO CENSOR IT.

Convenant that CanWest pretax earnings to be above certain amount, or vendor financing agreement could demand principle back. Not sure how this convenant right to demand immediate repayment is enforcable in Canada; CanWest shareholders already paid most of the purchase price of newspapers. And Hollinger paid a fine to CanWest for misrepresenting newspapers pre tax earnings. [[17]]. Quote,"Jan. 29, 2009 Canwest receives an arbitrated award of about $51-million for unresolved adjustments and claims surrounding the acquisition of newspaper assets from Hollinger." Quote, "March 12, 2009 Canwest receives $34-million in full settlement of money owing from an arbitration award in its dispute with Hollinger International Inc."

Active concern of both our nations' securities regulators, that Hollinger International (Sun-times) as part of their US Chapter 11, in the disposition of the vendor financing agreemnt at 15 cents on the dollar. Holliinger International not banckrupt, if their CanWest bonds valued at real value. [[18]] [[19]] [Fifty nine papers sold for 5 million cheats the free market.] Issues with a Canadian company selling Canada's newspapers, and transfering the vendor financing agreement off shore to avoid Canadian taxes. [[20]] Could be that, certain hedge funds owe Canadian taxes on the the sale of the Canadian newspaper vendor financing agreement bonds. It is not right to depict these bonds as regular, as bonds registered under rule 144A [21], restricted from being sold on the open market in North America. --Haida chieftain (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

And what does any of that have to do with Angelo Gordon's hedge fund? —C.Fred (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I asked. Wikipedia is not the Financial Post, Bloomberg, or CNN Financial. The intricate financial dealings of Canwest do not belong in a general article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Neil, I'm in agreement with you there. While some information should be presented about Canwest's current situation, it should not overwhelm the article, and every minute detail does not need to be presented. I also agree that information added should benefit the general reader; the article should not be skewed to cater to Canwest owners or any other party with a conflict of interest with the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Western world ethic is that the free press be accountable. DO NOT NOT COVER UP FRAUD. Why did CanWest settle with Hollinger in 2009 concerning the sale of Canada's newspapers in 2000, when the same agreement as the same time (hollinger's vendor financing bonds) were demanding the expropriation of CanWest shares? [[22]] Arbitrator should have struck down the clause to demand full principle payment based on a Canwest pre tax earnings. Hollinger has acknowledge the earnings disclosed to CanWest were deceptive and inaccurate -- reduces right to expropriate CanWest shares based on pre tax earnings then, should it not?

Have a question. Can the CanWest article mention the 275 million cash payment in 2003 to reduce the interest rate from 12.125% to 8% on the Canadian newspaper vendor financing bonds. Can this 275 million gift be disclosed on wiki? --Haida chieftain (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The answer to the second question is easy: No. It's not a gift; it's a payment related to debt, either repayment or restructuring. To call it a gift is to introduce bias into the text. —C.Fred (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Right of article to mention CanWest debt restructuring. Yes the word gift is a point of view, so will change. Thanks. No nation's newspapers should pay a 12.125% interest rate. Usury. Basically, certain factions will pay whatever to buy the free world's voice, makes CanWest's assets very valuable. --199.60.104.100 (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Question: Do small nations' affected by news monopolies, have the right to read about the sale price details of those assets in wikipedia? Specifically: wiki readers from Canada; and CanWest shareholders; and the millions and millions of Canadians that read these newspapers deserve consideration; also other parts of the Engligh World, like New Zealand, Austrialia, and Ireland etc, also touched by CanWest news programming -- there are strong feeling here that the truth be told; inotherwords, simply said, this has a a high public interest, and the article should honour this. According to Goldman Sachs Canadian filing, sources the Globe and Mail, CanWest bonds (Hollinger's CanWest newspaper vendor financing bonds) sold for 15 cents on dollar. To censor that CanWest bonds claiming to own CanWest, sold for 15 cents on dollar -- let's the reader down, and let's our civilization down. [23] --Haida chieftain (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a newspaper, it is an encyclopedia. It's not our job to hold CanWest accountable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted Haida Chieftan's most recent edits. I wish he'd explain what he wants to say, rather than inserting scraps on uncontextualised text, not supported by references. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there any support to cut down this section to maybe two paragraphs? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you've got it from me. A couple of sensible paras describing the current goings on in broad terms would be more useful than what we have at the moment.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Date disconnect with BS, IS figures

Since Haida chieftain removed the equity figure from the infobox repeatedly, I've updated it and the assets to the figures as of 11/30/09 (i.e., after 1Q 2010). However, this creates a disconnect with the income statement figures. I don't think a rolling 12-month income statement figure is appropriate (it borders on synthesis), and trying to annualize from 1Q10 results is even worse. Does anybody object to having the income statement figures be for FY 2009 and the balance sheet figures, instead of as of the end of FY 2009, as of the end of the first quarter of FY 2010? —C.Fred (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Canwest. --RrburkeekrubrR 23:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC) --Haida chieftain (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Rrburke has rescinded that warning, since he feels your edits were in good faith, albeit a content dispute. —C.Fred (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"For the three month period ended November 30, 2009 Canwest reported net earnings of $653 million." Ten disposition, non operating profit. http://www.canwestglobal.com/investors/investor_documents/F10/q1/Canwest_Q1_2010_Release.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.60.104.100 (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Apropos the above, I have removed this from the article CanWest when it filed for creditor protection, the Company's reported a Canwest reported net earnings of $653 million (includes the gain of 570 million from the sale of Ten) for the three months eneded Novemeber 30, 2009.

The two are obviously connected. Anyone venture as to what Haida Chieftan is trying to say? Is it that CanWest inflated its earnings by including the value of the sale of Ten, and is the point that the sale income went to creditors and shouldn't have been included as income? Am I right (HC, is this what you are trying to get over???), is this actually correct in Canadian financial law, and is this something that should be in the article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"If the details of CanWest's debt transactions are that significant to the reader, then they'll have been covered in secondary sources. Can you point to an article in a secondary source (a newspaper, Maclean's, etc.) that has covered it? I wish that debt restructurings—or even C$400 million payments made on debt in default in the course of restructuring it—were unusual, but they're not. What makes this debt transaction unusual—and can you explain it with analysis in an independent source and not your own analysis?" Answer. CanWest failed in its duty to do its best for CanWest shareholders, when CanWest voluntarily bought back bonds, dollar per dollar, unusual debt transaction when the bond market is selling the same bonds below a dollar.' If bonds bought for .15 cents on the dollar, and adding in the 8% interest rate, that's a 700% profit. Could someone enter into the article that CanWest bought back bonds dollar per dollar? --Haida chieftain (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide a decent financial source that says this, and makes some sensible commentary. As I believe I've said before, if you just want to draw attention to CanWest's wrongdoings, start a blog. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC

Haida Chieftan, I have moved your edit on the voluntary filing, and have edited it. The word 'voluntarily' does not need to be highlighted, italicised, put into quotes, or any other thing designed to signify that you have some point to make. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

archived old sections, rants and soapboxing

Ok, so I manually archived any of the rant / soapbox sections or sections that looked like there was no outstanding items to be discussed. If you feel there was a subject that still needed discussion and you're not currently a banned user editing as an IP sockpuppet please feel free to drag said section out of archive. I've configured Misza bot to archive sections that are more than a month old and have set up the archive links at the top of this page.

From now on I recommend that any tendentious editing, disruptive comments or general asshattery from banned users / sock puppets be reverted on sight as to not muck up the valuable parts of this talk page with nonsense. Hope this helps the well meaning editors of this article have more productive discussions! Nefariousski (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Delisting(?) from TSX to TSX Venture

When was Canwest taken off of the TSX and moved to TSX Venture? If that move is similar to being delisted from NYSE, that's worth mentioning in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Canwest's stock was delisted from the TSX main board on November 13th, and started trading on the venture exchange on the 16th. The delisting was triggered by their filing for protection under the CCAA. Mlaffs (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you got a link to a news story on it? —C.Fred (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

From the CBC.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 05:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)