Las Vegas: Heartbreak hotel: Elvis project seemingly dead

Printable View

11-06-2008, 04:42 PM
vivalasvegas

Las Vegas: Heartbreak hotel: Elvis project seemingly dead

Heartbreak hotel: Elvis project seemingly dead

Plans for building an Elvis-themed hotel on the Strip have apparently
gone from unlikely to nearly dead in the wake of cancellation of a
third-party acquisition.

In a Wednesday filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, New
York-based FX Real Estate and Entertainment said an agreement to
acquire an 85 percent interest in Elvis Presley Enterprises was
canceled when a go-private deal for CKX Inc., which licenses the
rights to the singer, fell through on Monday.

FX Real Estate, which owns 18 acres on the Strip, announced in
September a plan to develop an Elvis-themed hotel-casino was unlikely
due to the "dislocation and turbulence in the capital markets."

link: today's paper-business section, Las Vegas Review Journal

http://www.lvrj.com/business/33988834.html
11-06-2008, 04:57 PM
Elvislives72

One word to describe this cancellation....ECONOMY.
11-06-2008, 08:44 PM
KPM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vivalasvegas

Heartbreak hotel: Elvis project seemingly dead

Plans for building an Elvis-themed hotel on the Strip have apparently
gone from unlikely to nearly dead in the wake of cancellation of a
third-party acquisition.

In a Wednesday filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, New
York-based FX Real Estate and Entertainment said an agreement to
acquire an 85 percent interest in Elvis Presley Enterprises was
canceled when a go-private deal for CKX Inc., which licenses the
rights to the singer, fell through on Monday.

FX Real Estate, which owns 18 acres on the Strip, announced in
September a plan to develop an Elvis-themed hotel-casino was unlikely
due to the "dislocation and turbulence in the capital markets."

link: today's paper-business section, Las Vegas Review Journal

http://www.lvrj.com/business/33988834.html

Isn't Robert Sillerman a major stockholder in both FX Real Estate and naturally CKX Inc.? So why would he be buying 85% of EPE again from CKX for FX?
11-06-2008, 10:12 PM
Elvislives72

To be honest I never really expected his dream Elvis-land hotel to ever get off the ground. For one reason there wasn't enough room nor space to build a 3,000 room luxury Vegas style hotel in the small 16 acre lot of the size he was planning to build. The other reason was the fact that he expected to raise more than a billion dollars in capital funding to cover the $3 billion cost. Even before the economy crisis that was practically impossible.

He needs to focus on one thing at a time and that should be Graceland which needs improvements not a grand hotel in Vegas.
11-06-2008, 10:30 PM
KPM

I'm not sure what his plans are.
To buy again what you already own-through another company seems cannibilistic.
I know there has to be some Wall Street type logic to it-but we see where Wall Street Logic has taken Wall Street.
Since this deal (which he seems to represent on both sides) has fallen through it does not speak well for him and his business expertise.
Strange to say the least.
11-06-2008, 11:36 PM
utmom2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by KPM

Since this deal (which he seems to represent on both sides) has fallen through it does not speak well for him and his business expertise.
Strange to say the least.

Very very strange.....:blink::blink::blink::blink:
11-07-2008, 08:39 AM
vivalasvegas

i think he has investors pulling out. that's what happened. :) investors and stockholders rule what a business does, more than anything else.
11-07-2008, 08:42 AM
Elvislives72

Quote:

Originally Posted by vivalasvegas

i think he has investors pulling out. that's what happened. :) investors and stockholders rule what a business does, more than anything else.

Why are you smiling? This could end up hurting Elvis' future more than Sillerman's.
11-07-2008, 12:03 PM
KPM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elvislives72

Why are you smiling? This could end up hurting Elvis' future more than Sillerman's.

Beg to differ, Elvis's talent and charisma which are the heart of why Elvis is still popular-did very well without Sillerman's influence.
Sillerman has made huge plans, and an initial investment of over $100 million to Lisa. (as we all know). So far those huge plans and the grand scope he has been promoting-have amounted to very little. Yet Graceland still is deawing people worldwide and it still makes a good profit-Elvis still is selling records, his publishing companies still rake in profits when any of the songs they own are used in various media. Graceland is still in Lisas hands.
11-07-2008, 12:42 PM
Elvislives72

Quote:

Originally Posted by KPM

Beg to differ, Elvis's talent and charisma which are the heart of why Elvis is still popular-did very well without Sillerman's influence.
Sillerman has made huge plans, and an initial investment of over $100 million to Lisa. (as we all know). So far those huge plans and the grand scope he has been promoting-have amounted to very little. Yet Graceland still is deawing people worldwide and it still makes a good profit-Elvis still is selling records, his publishing companies still rake in profits when any of the songs they own are used in various media. Graceland is still in Lisas hands.

That's now. I'm talking about the next 10-20 years.
11-07-2008, 02:33 PM
KPM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elvislives72

That's now. I'm talking about the next 10-20 years.

I understand-but the sky is not falling now-and I do not assume it will in the 10-20 years you speak of.
In 1980 many worried what would become of Elvis's image, sales and so on......yet they underestimated his appeal and talent. With next to nothing in unreleased recordings over 31 years he still has retained a place in the world. I do not doubt his talent or charisma-no dead entertainer will ever be as big-as when alive. But many dead entertainers have little legacy of any kind-they are footnotes. Elvis is not a footnote.
11-07-2008, 02:41 PM
utmom2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by KPM

I understand-but the sky is not falling now-and I do not assume it will in the 10-20 years you speak of.
In 1980 many worried what would become of Elvis's image, sales and so on......yet they underestimated his appeal and talent. With next to nothing in unreleased recordings over 31 years he still has retained a place in the world. I do not doubt his talent or charisma-no dead entertainer will ever be as big-as when alive. But many dead entertainers have little legacy of any kind-they are footnotes. Elvis is not a footnote.

(y)(y)(y)(y)(y)
:king::king::king::king::king:
:notworthy:notworthy:notworthy:notworthy:notworthy
11-08-2008, 01:16 PM
Stryx

Quote:

Originally Posted by KPM

I'm not sure what his plans are.
To buy again what you already own-through another company seems cannibilistic.
I know there has to be some Wall Street type logic to it-but we see where Wall Street Logic has taken Wall Street.
Since this deal (which he seems to represent on both sides) has fallen through it does not speak well for him and his business expertise.
Strange to say the least.

A company exists as a seperate entity to the owner or owners.

Having more than one company means that you are dealing with more than one entity.

So you can't just give something that one entity owns to another - a transaction must take place.
11-08-2008, 02:36 PM
KPM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stryx

A company exists as a seperate entity to the owner or owners.

Having more than one company means that you are dealing with more than one entity.

So you can't just give something that one entity owns to another - a transaction must take place.

I understand the process of selling and I realise that each of these companies is 2 seperate companies-but they have a common denominator in Sillerman.
I am wondering what the purpose is in selling the shares from hand A(CKX) to hand B(FX Real Estate).? In other words if I understand this correctly he is selling something he owns back to a company he owns or at least is a principal stockholder in.

CKX INC-.The "C" and "K" stand for "Content is King", representing the focus of the company's business strategy to acquire established content, and then to improve, enhance and development the marketing of such content. The "X" takes the initial of founder Robert F.X. Sillerman. This is a trademark of many Sillerman companies, such as "SFX Entertainment" and "FXM Asset Management"

NEW YORK, May 15, 2008 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- FX Real Estate and Entertainment Inc. (NASDAQ: FXRE), announced today that Robert F.X. Sillerman, the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and The Huff Alternative Fund, L.P. and an affiliate, together a principal stockholder of the Company, have purchased a total of 4.97 million shares of the Company's common stock at $10 per share. Combined with the purchases made by Mr. Sillerman and Huff during the pendancy of the Company's recently completed rights offering, Mr. Sillerman and Huff purchased a total of approximately 5.3 million and 3.8 million shares, respectively, at $10 per share. The Company raised a total of $98.7 million from the rights offering (including the purchases by Sillerman and Huff).
11-09-2008, 09:51 AM
Stryx

It's probably easier to look at the company as a seperate person.

So when something is transferred it is sold from one person to another.

Sillerman being involved in either does not make any difference. A Transaction must take place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KPM

I understand the process of selling and I realise that each of these companies is 2 seperate companies-but they have a common denominator in Sillerman.
I am wondering what the purpose is in selling the shares from hand A(CKX) to hand B(FX Real Estate).? In other words if I understand this correctly he is selling something he owns back to a company he owns or at least is a principal stockholder in.

CKX INC-.The "C" and "K" stand for "Content is King", representing the focus of the company's business strategy to acquire established content, and then to improve, enhance and development the marketing of such content. The "X" takes the initial of founder Robert F.X. Sillerman. This is a trademark of many Sillerman companies, such as "SFX Entertainment" and "FXM Asset Management"

NEW YORK, May 15, 2008 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- FX Real Estate and Entertainment Inc. (NASDAQ: FXRE), announced today that Robert F.X. Sillerman, the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and The Huff Alternative Fund, L.P. and an affiliate, together a principal stockholder of the Company, have purchased a total of 4.97 million shares of the Company's common stock at $10 per share. Combined with the purchases made by Mr. Sillerman and Huff during the pendancy of the Company's recently completed rights offering, Mr. Sillerman and Huff purchased a total of approximately 5.3 million and 3.8 million shares, respectively, at $10 per share. The Company raised a total of $98.7 million from the rights offering (including the purchases by Sillerman and Huff).
11-09-2008, 11:31 AM
Elvislives72

Is this really Elvis or topic related?:hmm:
11-09-2008, 11:34 AM
KPM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stryx

It's probably easier to look at the company as a seperate person.

So when something is transferred it is sold from one person to another.

Sillerman being involved in either does not make any difference. A Transaction must take place.

You are absolutely correct and I fully understand that. I am not doubting that if Sillermans FX Real Estate was going to buy the 85% of EPE that he owns in his other company CKX- a legal sales transaction must take place.
I am not questioning this transaction at all-I was just curious as to why if you hold something of value in your left hand (CKX) that you suddenly decide to transfer it to your right hand (FX)-either hand you hold it in it still weights the same, still is worth the same-that was my question.
But the reason a legal transaction must take place for this proposed sale-I fully understand.