What happened to the good old fashioned "merger Agreements" that companies used to do? I assume not enough money in it for the "Advisors" and "Lawyers"??!!??

Why bother with selling music, if you can double your share price with a pseudo take-over battle.

... and rememember where you read it first:

WMG to buy EMI? - 2006/05/04 14:36

The EMI bid makes no sense. It's too expensive for EMI, and there's no premium for the WMG-investors

But what about WMG buying EMI?

At present EMI is valued 4 billion dollars, 20 per cent less than the WMG (it should be the other way round).

Four weeks ago Bronfman Jr was against a merger with EMI:

Do you think the music industry is ripe for consolidation?
Consolidation for [its own] sake does not make a lot of sense. Ours is not a business that requires scale economics. Music companies have two areas where they add value. One is the editorial side of the business -- finding and nurturing talent. The second is the marketing of those artists, bringing them through a massive number of different channels and promoting their music. Warner Music is large enough to do both and to continue to grow.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_21/b3985088.htm

That WMG now wants to buy EMI proves that Bronfman Jr is just a pawn in the game(s) his backers (Thomas H. Lee) are playing.

Scott M Sperling on Bronfman:
The deal with Edgar is, he does a good job or someone else comes in to do a good job.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/busine...ourmoney/30tomm.html