According to numerous sources close to the situation, Yahoo has bid from $600 million to $800 million for the premium video site Hulu.

The reason for the wide range is due to the fact that the Silicon Valley Internet giant — similar to most bidders in the new effort to acquire Hulu — has proposed several different prices based on a variety of circumstances. That includes the length of the licensing rights for content and how much control the programming companies selling Hulu have over their media.

At the same time and separately, according to sources inside the company, Yahoo is also contemplating at least two other significant purchases — in the $150 million to $200 million range — each for a mobile and a communications company.

It’s certainly an ambitious and busy M&A agenda for Yahoo’s CEO Marissa Mayer, who just forked over $1.1 billion in cash to purchase youth-skewing blogging site Tumblr last week.

Presumably, she is interested in upping Yahoo’s longtime lackluster video efforts — it famously lost out at the last minute on the acquisition of YouTube many years ago to Google — as the arena becomes more critical to advertisers.

But, said sources, while allowing the bid to proceed, Mayer is more focused on the integration of Tumblr, as well as other acquisitions that will bolster other key product areas.

Thus, sources said that the Hulu effort is being led at Yahoo by Los Angeles-based Ian Weingarten, VP of corporate development, who works for M&A head Jackie Reses.

AllThingsD.com first broke the news of that deal, as well as Yahoo’s initial interest and subsequent bid for Hulu, which is owned by a trio of media giants: News Corp., Disney and Comcast.

The site, which has both a subscription and an advertising business, was on the market in 2011, with the hope for a bid of $2 billion that came with several years of programming rights. The sale was pulled after those higher bids did not materialize.

But Hulu is on the market again in the most advanced effort to sell it so far, with bids coming in from a range of suitors over the last week.

Yahoo’s Mayer and COO Henrique De Castro had met with Hulu’s team earlier this month for a get-to-know-you, just after an effort to buy a large stake in French video site Dailymotion was blocked by the government there.

Besides Yahoo, others interested in acquiring Hulu include: Separate bids from private equity firms KKR, Guggenheim Digital and Silver Lake (in conjunction with Hollywood talent agency William Morris Endeavor); Time Warner Cable; DirecTV; and the Chernin Group.

There could still be others, of course, though a deadline for initial bids has passed. Interestingly, so far, neither Google nor Amazon have made official efforts, perhaps because the pair already have robust video platforms.

Chernin’s bid, as had been widely reported, started in the $500 million range, which is interesting since the longtime media executive was once the COO of News Corp. and was critical to Hulu’s creation. Translation: He’d know just what the video platform is worth and how the place works.

Of course, low bids at the start are part of the normal process; sources close to the owners said that any bids under $1 billion are unlikely to be accepted.

One thing is certain: Now comes what will look a lot like a very noisy game of musical chairs, in which the various groups will vie for one-upmanship, even as they talk to each other about possible joint efforts. Who the most attractive candidate is, of course, will be much debated.

In addition, there is much disagreement over who and how Hulu should be sold by two of its owners, Disney and News Corp., which have squabbled over its direction from the start. (Comcast gave up its management rights as a concession to federal regulators a few years ago, so is sitting on the sideline twiddling its giant cable thumbs and doubtlessly wishing it could be a bidder, too.)

No matter the ceaseless bickering among giants, the trio of media conglomerates are providing Hulu’s most valuable programming, largely television shows from their broadcast networks. And that is the real point of the negotiating, according to many involved.

“Hulu is a very nice brand and technology, but the entire negotiation will be about the control and price of the content,” said one person close to the situation. “It’s the only thing that matters.”

I sent an email for comment to Yahoo, but expect no response.

(Full disclosure: News Corp. owns Dow Jones, which owns this site.)

According to sources close to the situation, Yahoo is among the companies taking a serious gander at TVGuide.com, the online entertainment listings, video and news site and mobile app.

Earlier today, Deadline Hollywood reported that its owner, Lionsgate, was in “advanced negotiations” to sell the site for about $20 million to one strategic bidder.

That’s the approximate price, my sources said too, who noted that Yahoo is only kicking the tires to determine if the site would add to its online media efforts and that such a deal is not in a final state.

But TVGuide.com is right in the wheelhouse of Yahoo’s acquisition efforts under CEO Marissa Mayer. She said the Silicon Valley Internet giant was looking at smaller purchases to round out its product line, especially in the mobile area.

Thus, its M&A point person, Jackie Reses, has been looking at “everything in the world,” according to numerous sources, across a large spectrum of arenas. TVGuide.com is in the media space, obviously — another she’s looked at is Los Angeles-based Maker Studios.

Hollywood studio Lionsgate last reported that TVGuide.com has upward of 24 million unique monthly visitors, and also has almost seven million mobile app users.

Lionsgate bought the site and television network in 2009, which also is owned in part by J.P. Morgan’s One Equity Partners.

Whatever you want to call him or her — a silver bullet, the cure or, as I like to say, the last unicorn — Yahoo’s ever-seeking and never-deciding board has now renewed its focus on finding a new CEO.

Also on the docket: Working on a deal to sell back at least some of its stake in its twin Asian assets — Yahoo Japan and the Alibaba Group — back to the companies. A partial sale of stock back could placate the often tense situation among the partners.

What is clear is that the two bids from private equity firms are now in an undetermined circling pattern — due to a variety of concerns around shareholder unrest (Occupy Yahoo looms for 2012).

Therefore, the idea of bringing in said fantasy leader to perhaps finally be the one to revive the long-troubled company has returned to the forefront of action, according to numerous sources both inside and outside the company.

The concept in short, said people familiar with the situation: Hire some compelling and entrepreneurial CEO to get the company moving again from a product point of view, do a massive organizational overhaul and help settle Yahoo’s thorny Asian issues.

While a number of names have been rumored in reports — such as Google business lead Nikesh Arora, who is actually not likely to leave his top post at the search giant — sources said the board has been targeting a number of candidates, including Hulu CEO Jason Kilar.

Others on Yahoo’s wish list include Juniper CEO Kevin Johnson and online advertising entrepreneur Brian McAndrews, who sold aQuantive to Microsoft. There are several others also being considered.

Sources said Kilar has met with Yahoo board members about the offer, but his hiring would be a long shot.

It’s an interesting — if complex — gambit to bring in Kilar, who has had his own wrangles with the multi-owner structure of the premium video service over the years.

Kilar’s status at Hulu has been in question ever since it was put on the block, then removed and then — well — who knows.

Hulu’s owners — News Corp., Disney and Providence Equity Partners, along with Comcast (which is a now a passive investor) — did not like the offers it got from various bidders, including Yahoo.

While the media giants have made noises about wanting to keep a stake in distribution, their commitment to that remains unclear.

The situation has put Kilar — who already had tense relations with the service’s shareholders — in limbo until a valuation is determined next year. Without going into the complex details, Kilar has a large equity stake that could be liquid in April, related to certain rights held by Providence.

It is well known that Kilar has been concerned the team that built Hulu gets some sort of payout for their work. In fact, many years ago, Hulu was seen as a possible IPO candidate.

What’s not in question is Kilar’s talent at creating a cohesive team and a compelling product — especially with an advertising and media focus — and the need at Yahoo for a vibrant leader to encourage innovation and discourage its rapidly increasing attrition issues.

The search for a new Yahoo CEO — which is being led by director Patti Hart, and is being conducted by Heidrick & Struggles — had been mostly sidelined until recently, as the board solicited bids for a partial investment from PE firms.

Two emerged, from Silver Lake and TPG Capital, which had wanted to pay from $16.50 to $18 a share for a stake of just under 20 percent in what is called a PIPE (Private Investment in Public Equity) arrangement.

But the low price, and worries about lawsuits and even a proxy fight related to such a deal, have slowed down the momentum significantly, said sources.

Instead, Yahoo has told bidders it will get back to them in the coming weeks about the direction it will take. Thus, the focus on lining up CEO candidates and plans related to reviving Yahoo.

Some of those possible execs have put their hand up, while others — like Kilar — are being solicited. In addition, some still think that Yahoo board member David Kenny remains an internal option, especially if the board of Yahoo gets a refresh, despite his recent announcement that he has no intention of seeking the job.

In general, this shift should not come has a surprise for the hurry-up-and-wait board of Yahoo, which has struggled over the years to make good choices for the Silicon Valley Internet giant.

That drift has resulted in a downturn in its prospects, even as other companies have surged.

Those troubles were brought into sharp focus in a recent report by new Goldman Sachs Internet analyst Heath Terry, who strafed Yahoo in his “sell” recommendation.

Among the gems by an analyst whose investment bank is currently an advisor to Yahoo on its strategic options:

Yahoo simply faces too many competitive and structural headwinds to believe any kind of meaningful turnaround is possible. While there is significant asset value on the balance sheet and in the company’s large, though increasingly less engaged user base, we continue to believe, as we have since before the first Microsoft offer, that the segment of management driving the company is intent on trying to revive Yahoo as a company, regardless of the cost to shareholders.

And, noting the need for a new CEO:

We would become more positive if we felt there was a likely event in the near term that might unlock the value of the balance sheet assets at Yahoo. While we believe the aggregate value of those assets is above the value reflected in YHOO, in order to be more positive on the stock we would need some proof that management is willing and able to take the steps necessary to unlock that value either through a sale or distribution to shareholders. Meanwhile, the declining profitability of the core display advertising business is masked by a search business that continues to lose share and relies on artificial support from Microsoft. We would become more positive on the core Yahoo business if the company is able to find a new CEO capable of focusing the business on its core advertising and communications opportunities, rationalizing costs, and driving growth. This would require user growth and especially engagement improvements in both online and mobile, improving monetization of advertising inventory, and stabilizing its search business.

In other words: Wanted, one unicorn to work magic against increasingly troublesome dragons. Ability to sparkle a plus.

“Let’s go. Yes, let’s go.” [They do not move.]

– Samuel Beckett, “Waiting for Godot”

In Internet terms, the removal of Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz happened a dog’s age ago.

In fact, it was September 6.

Since then, it has felt like a slow slog, especially contrasting the situation with that of another troubled Silicon Valley giant, Hewlett-Packard, which fired its CEO Léo Apotheker and appointed a new one, Meg Whitman on September 22.

Since then, in comparison, the former eBay CEO has been like the Energizer Bunny, making a series of major and often difficult decisions, including: Holding onto its PC unit; reaffirming its controversial deal to buy Autonomy; promising a decision on the fate of its webOS unit within the next two weeks; appointing new execs; and even buying a company.

To be fair, Yahoo did acquire advertising start-up Interclick.

Otherwise, still no sale or investment deal. No new CEO. No Asia resolution. And, perhaps most importantly, no clearly articulated strategy going forward.

It’s not that Yahoo’s leadership isn’t working at it.

Some fervently insist to me that there is a “plan,” as if there is some clever game of Internet Stratego going on that I cannot possibly grok.

Mebbe — but of this I have no doubt: The Yahoo board has indeed been huffing and puffing away, weighing and measuring, considering and debating.

A lot.

Maybe I’m just too impatient. I am (ask my kids).

Or maybe Yahoo’s beleaguered employees are, one of whom just wrote me plaintively, “unreal how they can drag this out,” in what has become a common refrain up and down the ranks.

Or maybe it’s the Asian partners, Alibaba Group and SoftBank, who are antsy and have considered a variety of nuclear options in order to get back stakes Yahoo holds in them. Said one: “The strategy seems to be to frustrate and exhaust us into submission.”

Or, finally, maybe it’s the newly frustrated recent bidders for a partial stake in Yahoo, Silver Lake and TPG Capital. Declared one to me after I warned that Yahoo might, in fact, drag the proceedings out longer than you might expect: “I thought you were kidding.”

Nope, welcome to the Yahoo waiting game, PE guys!

So, to help us all get through it, here’s a quick update primer on what’s what on the various fronts:

Who’s in Charge Here?

Technically, it is the Yahoo board, which is aided by interim CEO Tim Morse.

First, a word about Morse: By all accounts, he is doing a very good job as temporary head honcho — calming the troubled company, making swift decisions about daily operating issues and being a generally nice dude to deal with.

“He’s Yahoo’s no-drama Obama, in comparison to what was happening before,” said one exec, in reference to the more volatile regime under Bartz.

Still, despite his very pleasant all-hands meetings, such as one earlier this week, Morse had previously been Yahoo’s CFO and not an Internet-savvy visionary to give the company inspiration. No insult intended, but he’s the accountant guy.

To be fair, he is not meant to be the visionary, but many at the company are yearning for exactly that.

A role that is now being taken up again by co-founder, former CEO and director Jerry Yang, who dozens of employees tell me is unusually involved in operational details these days for a board member.

I get reports of sightings of him all the livelong day: Jerry in demand-side advertising confab! Jerry chitchatting with entrepreneurs from a possible start-up acquisition! Jerry weighing in on a variety of products. Look, over in the cubicle, it’s Jerry!

This is seen by Yahoo employees as a good thing and also a bad thing, since it’s hard to be running your little divisional show at Yahoo with the dude who invented it all looking over your shoulder, even if he means well. People naturally defer to Yang, the 800-pound Web icon in the room.

But, given the overwhelming state of stasis at Yahoo now — “No one can do anything until we find out how the story ends,” said one staffer — and employees eying the exits, no power at Yahoo really matters but the board.

You know, the board that has gotten the company to this moment of crisis and profound ennui, which is its own particularly ironic irony.

To better understand the power dynamics on the board, above is a little chart for you to peruse to give you an idea of which independent board member is running what key committee.

The only truly important one is the Transactions and Strategic Planning committee, which is headed by Intuit President and CEO Brad Smith and includes former Akamai President (and former Yahoo CEO candidate) David Kenny, top HP exec Vyomesh Joshi and other guy Gary Wilson.

And, in completely visible shadow form, Yang. Multiple sources close to the situation said he has been a key force in the strategery around a possible sale or investment.

This has caused not more than a little tension among board members, but everyone seems to like the much described nicest-man-in-the-room, Smith, and hopes his cool head will prevail.

Another important part of the board is the Nominating and Corporate Governance committee run by Patti Hart, who is energetically and simultaneously — if pointlessly — in search of a capable new Yahoo CEO.

Or, as I like to call this mythical person: The Unicorn.

The Deal

As I and many others have previously reported, there are bids on the table for partial investments in Yahoo by two very powerful private equity firms, Silver Lake and TPG Capital.

It’s a PE rumble, with a side of Microsoft financial backing! (I think Silver Lake’s Egon Durban makes a very nice Riff, while Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer is the perfect Officer Krupke.)

My fervent wishes for some figurative and dance-accompanied knife-play aside, the bids are essentially the same in general and different in particular. Silver Lake is offering about $16.50 a share, while TPG is dangling a tiny bit more. Silver Lake has power entrepreneur and VC Marc Andreessen on its side, while TPG is trying to get Silicon Valley fave investor and start-up whisperer Reid Hoffman of Greylock Partners and LinkedIn on its team. Both have ideas on CEOs, strategy and what to do about the Asian assets.

This type of deal could happen suddenly and you’ll hear about it quick, since the losing side will immediately trash it to the media.

As you might expect, each director has their favorite PE firm, with some not liking Andreessen, some thinking the TPG bid is a little light, some for a whole-company deal and some wanting Yahoo to hire its own CEO and run the place itself.

Of course, the last one shows a disturbing level of denial and should be a nonstarter, given the board’s abysmal record on CEO choice and its riding of Yahoo to this sad point in its storied history.

Here’s what to expect on the PE front: A lot of wrangling behind the scenes with frequent leaks to the media about what each side wants and will not yield on.

CEO choice or no CEO choice, that is the question!

Also a big factor are Yahoo’s major shareholders, few of whom like the partial investment deal, which is known as a PIPE (Private Investment in Public Equity), because of the insiderness of it all and because they prefer a whole-company sale at a higher price.

There is also pressure from activist shareholders like Daniel Loeb of Third Point, who has attacked Yang and others on the board and is ready to pounce with a proxy fight if Yahoo tries to override shareholders too egregiously. And, of course, the inevitable lawsuits over any arrangement that seems to block a whole-company bid.

That said, such a mega-deal seems unlikely, since it is too pricey and despite a lot of noise that Yahoo’s Asian partners were ready to strike with a takeover in order to get back Yahoo’s big stakes in their companies.

That’s kind of like buying a store to get back the cool pair of shoes you sold, but bankers love to scheme up this stuff. While it certainly could happen, it would be a bear of a deal.

Perhaps more like Yogi Bear, hopelessly angling for a tasty pic-a-nik basket — but grrrr anyway.

But perhaps the biggest factor in all of this mishegas is time. There is none on a lot of levels, most especially the increasing level of brain drain and drift at Yahoo. After the New Year dawns, this is going to spin right out of control and amount to the biggest internal challenge Yahoo faces.

An Asian Solution

As I and others have reported, Yahoo is entertaining yet another proposal to sell all or part of its Asian assets back to the companies, which make up a bulk of its market valuation.

The relationship between Yahoo and its Asian partners has long been fraught, and today the difficulty of reaching an agreement remains a vexing issue. That’s because it is hard and complex and because no one wants to do what the other side wants.

I am no tax attorney, but it seems as if Yahoo will ultimately come to some deal with China’s Alibaba and Japan’s SoftBank, which could include big investors like Russia’s DST Global.

And, as I reported last week, the Asian partners want to strike a deal with the current board rather than lose leverage with a much cannier new owner.

It’s a tough decision in all aspects to strike, but would remove the focus on the fact that Yahoo’s most valuable asset is something it is not running and simply holds due to a good stock trade in years past.

Years past should be the operative thought here, since the Asian assets have nothing to do with what Yahoo needs to do with its core U.S. and global brand.

You know, the thing that allowed them to buy those lucrative Asian assets in the first place?

Strategery

And that’s the crux of all this, isn’t it? Yahoo needs a new strategy and fast.

Or it needs to clarify and hone its current strategies around advertising and media and define itself once and for all. While it often touts itself as a premier digital media company, it’s still not clear exactly what Yahoo is saying by that.

In fact, incredibly, sources told me that the board was still wrangling over the tired issue of what Yahoo is at its most recent meeting — essentially, is it a products company or a media company?

If I had to listen to that who-am-I-anyway debate again, I think I would scream, given how many important Web trends that Yahoo has whiffed in recent years, many of which were right in its own wheelhouse.

How much damage this has caused to Yahoo’s core business is a critical one to determine, with many feeling the situation is too far gone to revive it and others confident that this is simply an issue of poor execution.

I am in the middle on this one, but all the indicators of Yahoo’s business have long been heading in the wrong direction, and results in the next quarter are expected to underline this even more.

Thus, the board’s navel-gazing at this point is untoward, considering that it is presiding over the possibility of a sale that should not have had to happen in the first place. While it is not quite a fire sale, it’s no cause for celebration at all the attention, either.

In fact, it’s also pointless, since — if this all resolves as it should — the current Yahoo board will not be the one determining the company’s future any longer. Remember that: This group should and will be gone for the most part.

Yahoo shareholders and employees can hope, at least.

Then, it will be up to the next group of leaders to make the very hard choices — including what are likely to be massive layoffs and radical surgery on its offerings — for what’s to come next.

In the end, that is all that will matter. Until then, as usual, you’ll have to sit tight.

Though last week’s reports were overblown and premature, it certainly might come to that at some point if past is prologue — Alibaba CEO Jack Ma has declared his interest publicly a number of times and has certainly been busy lining up his financial and strategic partners to do so.

This is one very sharp sword of Damocles hovering over Yahoo that could drop at any time and very quickly. It has impact, too, because every day there are unsettling Wall Street whispers that the bid is coming — I got three today, in fact, that it would happen Monday.

Actually, the day it is most likely to happen is the moment after Yahoo once again turns down the pair’s latest offer to buy back their shares in a complex tax-free transaction.

This has been a multi-year effort on the part of the trio, one littered mostly with recrimination and tears. Lots and lots of tears.

But this time, it’s critical to the Asian partners to strike the deal with Yahoo — and before its current board does another deal with current private equity bidders it is now contemplating.

Because once new leadership is in power, Ma’s leverage goes buh-bye. Now, it is a quantum level higher with the old Yahoos than with the next ones, who will have much more control and power over the company.

Thus, the threat of a possible whole company bid at a higher prices — a tasty treat to disgruntled shareholders — keeps the pressure on Yahoo’s current directors not to make a partial deal that is considered wanting.

This bird in the hand is seen as critical to Alibaba and SoftBank, who want only to get back their stakes and not to engage in what would turn into an ugly and hostile battle for control of all of Yahoo.

As one source told me last week: “The threat of a takeover is more useful than the damage an actual takeover would cause for everyone. No one wants this to be unfriendly.”

Perish the thought!

Yahoo board member Brad Smith — who is Intuit’s CEO and president in his spare time — has become the key man in this whole complex sales process and has also taken up the central role in dealing with the Asian proposal, along with Yahoo’s interim CEO, Tim Morse, and its legal head, Mike Callaghan.

They have to wrangle what to do with Yahoo’s 40 percent stake in Alibaba and a 35 percent holding in Yahoo Japan, which makes up a great deal of the company’s value and has become its most vexing Gordian knot.

Still, after a number of previous efforts failed miserably, Alibaba and Softbank brought yet another proposal to Yahoo in early October that would spin off the stakes to them and also avoid a big tax bill.

The sides have been talking on and off amid the other noise at Yahoo of late, which this week centered on low-priced bids for a partial investment in Yahoo from two separate PE firms, Silver Lake and TPG Capital.

Now what Yahoo does with its Asian assets matters to them, too, as both have their own plans for the dispensation of those stakes as key elements of their deals.

So it is not clear what would happen if the Alibaba and SoftBank shares were sold before either deal was done.

But it is unlikely to be a positive thing.

“The Asian assets are downside protection if the core Yahoo business is melting faster than anyone thinks,” said one person. “Without it there, Yahoo might be a lot more risky to buy into.”

Like, you might say, trying to catch a falling knife.

What an amazing coincidence.

On the very day Yahoo’s board is considering actual bids from two private equity firms interested in deals to buy close to 20 percent of the company for between $16.50 and $17.50 a share, comes a spate of eerily similar breathless media postings that there’s another bid in the making for $20!

That’s totes better, right? I mean, how can Yahoo’s directors accept a real live lesser-priced bid now when there’s a prettier one in the fog just ahead?

No, really, it’s there — if you squint really, really hard.

Except it’s not even close, when you actually check with two of the key members of the group of alleged buyers, which would apparently be Blackstone, Bain Capital and Yahoo’s Asian partners, Alibaba Group and SoftBank.

Sources close to Blackstone and Alibaba said while there have been talks, which have been previously reported weeks ago here and elsewhere, there is no bid in the offing that is close to fruition and at that price.

In an unusual public statement, in fact, Alibaba’s John Spelich said flatly: “Alibaba Group has not made a decision to be part of a whole-company bid for Yahoo.”

This from a company whose voluble CEO Jack Ma is prone to making giant and noisy speeches to signal his interest in finding a way — any way — to get back shares of the Chinese Internet giant from Yahoo.

Not this time, and several sources close to Alibaba reiterated that it was nowhere near close to any bid as yet and that a price is still up in the air. In addition, sources added, Alibaba might decide to work with another PE group, such as Providence Equity.

In addition, sources noted that if Alibaba could strike an adequate deal with private equity bidders to get a large chunk of the stake back, it would be highly preferable to a hostile takeover of Yahoo that could end in tears and little else.

“The threat of a takeover is more useful than the damage an actual takeover would cause for everyone,” said one person close to the situation. “No one wants this to be unfriendly.”

So why the rumors — doubtlessly being spread around by hopelessly cynical Wall Street types interested only in stock manipulation — surfacing today?

Simple: To get some easy-to-play media outlet to bite, report it as speculative fact and cause the stock of Yahoo to take flight tomorrow.

Hey, it could happen!

Sadly, this junior-league trick has already worked — Yahoo shares were up a dollar to $16.72 in after-hours trading tonight.

It is likely to go even higher tomorrow, which could cause the board of Yahoo to delay accepting either of the partial bids from Silver Lake or TPG Capital, even if they were the best thing for the company and its employees.

Except that the job of the Yahoo board is to evaluate what’s before them and not what is perhaps, someday, soon, wait-by-the-phone, really soon, I promise is going to be delivered.

In fact, several sources noted that it’s not clear if the Yahoo board has even asked for parties to submit whole-company bids yet.

When and if Yahoo’s board does that and if something better actually does come down the pike, with a much fatter price tag of $20 or more, then the directors can mull that over.

That would be the prudent thing to do for the company, its employees and its shareholders, even if Yahoo’s stock gets a temporary lift now.

Maybe I am just a hopeless Silicon Valley romantic and not a hardened Wall Street M&A type, but the survival of Yahoo is the real point here, rather than the lining of bankers’ already fee-stuffed pockets.

And anything other than that is just fog.

Last night, Yahoo’s board gathered for a pre-meeting dinner, a precursor to a day-long meeting today to weigh several bids from private equity firms to buy part of the Silicon Valley Internet giant, including Silver Lake and TPG Capital.

Among the thorniest of issues will be the low price that the firms want to pay for a 19.9 percent stake in the company. Silver Lake has offered $16.50 and TPG a dollar more.

In the past year, Yahoo share prices have seen a low of $11.09 and a high of almost $19. It closed yesterday at $15.70 — a price that is mostly due to sale rumors — making the offers not much of a gain on current market valuation.

The transaction type being contemplated is called a PIPE — or a Private Investment in Public Equity — with the investment below 20 percent, which allows Yahoo to avoid a shareholder vote on the issue.

While the Yahoo board had hoped for bids above $20, they are not expected to be forthcoming, considering the weakness in its business over recent years and the difficulty of returning it to health and growth.

Results in its upcoming quarter, for example, are expected to be weak again, with trouble in its advertising business, largely due to uncertainty around the business.

The low price, along with the attempt to bypass shareholder approval, is sure to infuriate Yahoo’s major investors, given they have watched the value of their stakes wilt over the years under current board management.

In the last five years, due to continually muddled leadership and the missing of key Internet trends, Yahoo shares have dropped 44 percent in value, which compares with huge gains from companies like Amazon and others.

Major Yahoo stakeholders are already irked by the PIPE idea itself, which could transfer power to private equity firms at preferential terms.

Another possible bone of contention will be the preservation of at least some parts of Yahoo’s current board.

Under a plan by Silver Lake, for example, it would get three board seats, as well as another one for a CEO of its choosing. Another seat will go to Yahoo co-founder and current board member Jerry Yang. There will be six independent board members, but it is not clear if they would be new or include some current directors.

One of the Silver Lake choices would be well-known Silicon Valley legend Marc Andreessen, who is now a powerful VC. The appeal of Andreessen is important to some major shareholders who have turned sour on Yang.

Who will be CEO of the rejiggered entity will also be discussed at the meeting. Sources said Silver Lake and TPG have definite candidates in mind and Yahoo has also been conducting an official search.

In other words, there’s a lot on the plate of Yahoo’s board today, which also needs to revisit continued proposals from its Asian partners — China’s Alibaba Group and SoftBank of Japan — to sell back its stakes in Alibaba and Yahoo Japan in various tax-free schemes.

Sources said Yahoo — which has thus far rejected such efforts — might now consider selling a part of their shares back, up to half. This would allow the company to give a cash dividend to its disgruntled shareholders.

If thwarted, as has been previously reported ad nauseum, Alibaba and SoftBank are considering their own bid with the help of other U.S. private equity firms, such as Blackstone.

Other PE firms — especially ones who have not signed Yahoo’s non-disclosure agreement related to any deal — are also hanging under the hoop, so to speak, to see what happens. At least one firm hopes the Yahoo board will reject the low-priced partial bids, leaving the court wide open again.

“It’s still anyone’s game,” said one possible bidder.

Except for Yahoo’s put-upon employees and shareholders, this is anything but fun. More on that soon.

Score one for Yahoo, it seems, getting some key private equity firms to sign its restrictive non-disclosure agreement to allow them a special peek at its business.

And now that includes Silver Lake, which has already had several discussions with Yahoo management and its board members, including co-founder Jerry Yang.

Silver Lake, which has perhaps been among the more aggressive of the possible bidders for Yahoo, had been a significant holdout over the NDA, because of provisions it felt were too onerous.

That included restricting “cross-talk” among the variety of suitors interested. Sources said Silver Lake had been discussing various scenarios related to Yahoo that might take a consortium of players to realize.

It seems it will agree to none of that, for now at least, joining several others who have also signed on the dotted line of secrecy. While Yahoo could have agreed to changes in the NDA, sources said the one Silver Lake agreed to was the same as others previously signed.

Those NDA-ready PE firms include TPG Capital and KKR. As of today, other bidders — such as Providence Equity Partners, Bain Capital, Blackstone and Hellman & Friedman — have not yet signed the document.

Yahoo had extended a deadline for doing to into this week, but firms can also get involved in later rounds of talks.

In addition, signing the NDA is not the end of the road for those who do not — Yahoo is a prominent public company and there are plenty of sources to talk to about its prospects.

But getting cooperation of Yahoo management could be critical, unless a bidder is contemplating making an unsolicited offer.

And that would be a tough road — just ask Microsoft.

Most of all, getting everyone to sign is important for Yahoo, which wants to control any sales or investment process and wants to avoid bidders taking control of its fate.

Thus, Silver Lake accepting the NDA is a big deal, since it had been considering hooking up with China’s Alibaba Group in a possible bid for all or part of Yahoo.

In addition, it has had success in a smaller but similar scenario around Internet telephony giant Skype, which it eventually sold to Microsoft for a lucrative upside.

As with Skype, Silver Lake is still working with Andreessen Horowitz, as I had previously reported. In fact, principal Marc Andreessen was present in a recent informational meeting Silver Lake had with Yahoo’s Yang.

I asked Silver Lake for comment about the NDA, bur it, um, deflected my swooping inquiry (inside joke alert!).

Maybe get something cooking in the whole what-will-Yahoo-do stakes, now that one of Yahoo’s more active board members is back.

And by “back,” I mean that Kenny — no longer a candidate for CEO — has no further need to recuse himself from the strategic process in which the Silicon Valley Internet company finds itself.

In an interview with Advertising Age last week, Kenny — the well-regarded online ad exec who recently stepped down as president of network infrastructure giant Akamai — released an unusual statement:

As a matter of policy, I do not comment on matters related to Yahoo as a Yahoo director. However, as a personal matter, I want to clarify that I believe Yahoo is a great company with enormous potential, but I am not — and will not be — a candidate for the CEO position. I look forward to my continued service on the Yahoo Board of Directors.”

By removing himself from the fray, that means, according to several sources, that Kenny will be diving back into sleeve-rolling duties at Yahoo, as one of its — how can I put this? — less comatose board members.

In fact — until he was sidelined by the obvious conflict of interest inherent in wanting to be CEO, while also directing the fate of Yahoo for shareholder value — Kenny had been deeply involved in a lot of the changes that had taken place of late, after a long period of board inaction.

That included the ouster of CEO Carol Bartz, who was fired for a number of reasons, including lack of strategic vision. It was relatively new board member Kenny — he became a director in February — who led the strategy committee that had asked Bartz for her road map, which she did not deliver to their liking. Obviously.

Because of the swirl around his possible CEO candidacy — Kenny was a noticeable inside candidate, since he is well known in the Internet advertising world for running and then selling Digitas to the Publicis Groupe for $1.3 billion in 2006 — he gave up leadership of the committee to Intuit President Brad Smith.

Sources said it is unlikely Kenny will get that top job back, but he remains a member of the transactions committee, which is leading the strategic review of the company.

That’s the key slot for the independent board members of Yahoo, who must ultimately be the ones to determine what path or offer the company will take.

One plus: Kenny has close relationships with most of the bidders — largely private equity firms — looking at Yahoo, and also is well known among the media and tech companies poking around, too. He also has advertising — and now tech — experience, which will be much needed as Yahoo explores its options.

Most importantly, Kenny is an independent director, which will be very important to the process going forward, especially since a lot of the spotlight has fallen on Yahoo co-founder and director Jerry Yang.

Yang — who has been a bit of a Yahoo lightning rod at times — has been involved in some of the meetings with those interested, along with interim CEO Tim Morse. The company recently noted that this was at the behest of the board.

While these were only informational meetings so far — and not negotiations, as some reports have surmised — Yang’s involvement will likely have to be more curtailed, at least publicly, especially if any of the deals include using his own large stake in Yahoo.

“This process has to be above board, since it is so easy for those wanting a better deal to try to cause all kinds of trouble,” said one source. “The company is already under attack in that regard.”

That’s a reference to a recent salvo by hedge fund activist Dan Loeb, a major Yahoo shareholder who has taken aim at the board and, last week, at Yang. Loeb essentially accused Yang of double-dealing in the process.

Enter Kenny, along with Smith and — to an increasingly lesser extent, of late — Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock. While there are other independent board members involved, these are the three to watch most closely now.

While some think Kenny still would like to be CEO of Yahoo — he was also on the short list several years ago when Bartz was hired — sources said he is more likely to take a job at another consumer Internet company.

While he certainly could slot into a large advertising firm or into the digital division of a big media concern, sources said Kenny is looking to be a CEO.

Just not at Yahoo.

At least for now, since down the road it is unclear what will become of Yahoo and who will run it in years to come.

In fact, it might even be Kenny in the end.

I have called Yahoo the Hamlet of the Internet many times, for its seemingly endless ruminating on what it should do and what it should be.

And that is true on a lot of fronts — from its strategic direction to rejiggering its advertising business to finding solid leadership to whether or not it will sell itself and how to a variety of bidders.

It’s no small irony then that perhaps it’s only easy move right now and the one most likely to happen soon — and which could temporarily assuage its always restless shareholders — is to finally settle a long and arduous effort to sell its Japanese assets.

Sources close to the situation said that the deal — as has been reported — is the closest to a deal compared to any other that Yahoo is contemplating.

Sale or outside investment discussions remain mired, while similar share sale discussions with its Chinese partner, Alibaba Group, remain a constant roundelay of dashed deals.

It has not always been thus recently between Yahoo and Yahoo Japan. Just over a year ago, the company shifted its paid and algorithmic search from Yahoo to Google, raising tensions between the companies.

Now, though, Japan has become the easy one.

In actuality, striking an actual deal is not and has been a task is on that Yahoo has been working on for many years, trying to figure out the best tax-free way to shed its 35 percent stake.

It makes sense, since the asset is no longer a strategic plus it once was.

It also frees up a lot of cash. As of September 30th, according to Yahoo, the pre-tax value of its Yahoo Japan stake was worth $6.4 billion. Presumably, Yahoo would either use the money to bolster its business or, more likely, give its shareholders some kind of dividend.

In such a deal, Yahoo’s longtime Japanese partner — and one of its very first investors — SoftBank would buy out Yahoo’s stake.

That’s the simple way of putting a deal that only an accountant can grok. But one plus is that if Yahoo does pull it off, it would be rid the company of one complication too many.

That said, any Japanese asset sale could also be impossible without a larger settlement of Yahoo’s globally connected issues — or, as I like to call it, the hairball.

And SoftBank, which already owns a lot of Yahoo Japan would certainly need more than just cash — perhaps more of Alibaba than it already owns — to be enticed to buy even more.

Also, for all intents and purpose, SoftBank is the only buyer of Yahoo’s Japan asset, so there’s that issue.

But if it could show some progress in some part of its hopelessly complicated world, for Yahoo, that is always a good thing.

Do sale rumors make a troubled asset more attractive? Yes — except when more rumors (that those sales rumors might not be true) appear.

Welcome to just another day in the life of Yahoo, which saw its shares drop more than 5.5 percent today. Its stock declined almost a dollar to close at $15.64, after it was reported by various news orgs that Yahoo might be leaning toward no sale and a shareholder dividend, and toward taking control of its own sale of its lucrative Asian assets.

That was counter to the news — from a number of the very same outlets — touting a variety of ever more elaborate and sometimes breathless sale scenarios last week, featuring various configurations of Microsoft, Google and private equity firms like Silver Lake and others.

Silver Lake, in fact, appears to be the most aggressive in the possible bidding for all or parts of Yahoo, and has been noodling such a deal most intently, and for a long time now.

It makes sense, given that Silver Lake was successful in a vaguely similar deal that ultimately saved the Internet telephony service Skype, which it eventually peddled at a high price to Microsoft.

In fact, according to several sources, Yahoo director and co-founder Jerry Yang — also a former CEO of the company, who appears to have seized the ball firmly in the strategy game — met with Silver Lake today for an unspecified little chitchat.

That said, one source told me, “what is deeply uncertain is whether Silver Lake will do something at all.”

This is par for the course in this everything-but-the-kitchen-sink drama. Because — although it makes for a boring post, and the back and forth throat-clearing before an actual event might be entertaining — so far, not very much is actually happening as yet at Yahoo, with regard to its variety of options.

Of course, this could change in an hour. Or tomorrow, or the next day. Most of all, it’s clear that Yahoo’s board has to move in some significant way before the end of the year.

So, yes, the Silicon Valley Internet giant is doing all the sales-oriented stuff it should do with its coterie of pricey bankers (presumably being paid by the hour).

Yes, it has recently hired a talent-search firm, which is eyeing the landscape to find a willing CEO. (Even more adviser costs!)

And, yes, it is still wrangling with its Asian partners — Alibaba Group and SoftBank — over how to do a tax-free transaction (you’d think from all the sweating over it that this deal was harder to solve than the European debt crisis).

And, on schedule, activist shareholders — like hedge-fund agitator Dan Loeb of Third Point — should be attacking again soon, until a deal is done.

But according to many sources both inside and outside Yahoo, what’s happening is pretty much business as usual for this Hamlet of a company, which is lugubriously debating and weighing and pondering its fate.

I suppose it should, given the importance of it all, except it is a conundrum that has been going on for far too long at Yahoo, and under a number of different leaders.

In other words, it’s like “As the World Turns,” except with some new characters and a whole lot more amnesia.

But the slowness of a very real process is also causing deep frustration with all those dealing with Yahoo now — including possible bidders, and definitely its Asian partners.

Their gripes — which are louder than in most deals — are not surprising: They refuse to sign a too-onerous NDA to look at Yahoo’s books; there’s an irksome tone of indecision on the part of the company’s board; and, as always, the incessant leaks about all of this and more are making it worse.

One bidder has likened the company to a “melting iceberg that has a lot less time than the planet has to put its house in order.”

Another bemoaned the variety of trial balloons being floated, and noted that no movement was what Yahoo seems to do best.

That’s not exactly true, of course, so expect to see more leaks about plots and plans and meetings.

But no matter what you hear, keep in mind that having Yahoo’s fate being spun about like a top on a daily basis on Wall Street and in the media is not good for the company itself — or for its employees and shareholders.

Since it makes me dizzy — even though I like a good scoop as much as the next reporter — that’s the reason I have largely stuck to reporting about the actual internal turmoil inside Yahoo, from poor employee morale to various staff rejiggerings to more relentless brain drain.

Because while everyone fiddles, Yahoo’s real prospects of maintaining its core business melt a little bit more every day.

Yahoo is on its third CEO in four years, it has lost advertising momentum to Google and Facebook, its engagement levels are dangerously slowing, its social and mobile strategies are unclear and even its powerful email product is under siege.

And in the end, it is only these things that will matter to whoever runs the company in the end.

[Photo from Mat Honan's fantastic tweet here.]

Tomorrow, after the markets close, Yahoo will announce its third-quarter earnings, perhaps one of its more important reports in recent years.

Wall Street analysts are expecting the Silicon Valley Internet giant to report earnings of 17 cents per share on $1.07 billion in revenues.

But whether or not Yahoo has beat expectations will be less scrutinized than information about the state of Yahoo’s key search and display advertising businesses, as well as other user metrics.

It is at those numbers that a range of players — including major shareholders, possible bidders and media — will be looking to see just how badly the company’s business has fared with all the turmoil of late.

That has included the firing of its CEO Carol Bartz, a massive strategic review that includes the possibility of a sale to a range of mostly private equity buyers, a persistent attrition problem and a worry that the company continues to drift in its product innovation, even as others have surged.

Last week, I reported that Yahoo had finally selected an executive search firm to help it find a new CEO, which many think is a difficult task given the uncertain situation.

A series of worrisome trends across its ad businesses over several recent quarters has some looking at the company for possible purchase with some skepticism.

“What if it is too broken to fix, what if trends to Google’s and Facebook’s premium offerings is too overwhelming?” said one potential bidder for Yahoo. “There are a lot of what-ifs at Yahoo.”

By comparison, Google posted impressive earnings last week.

Yahoo stock closed at $15.70 today, down 1.3 percent.

A range of major players interested in acquiring all or a large piece of Yahoo have been prepping possible bids and have been in touch with the Internet giant’s board over the last several days.

While Yahoo has publicly said it was not for sale, according to numerous sources both inside and outside the company, it has been receptive to the interest and its Chairman Roy Bostock and Co-founder Jerry Yang have spoken to several.

Among the possible players: Silicon Valley venture firm Andreessen Horowitz, which is working with private equity firm Silver Lake, in a deal that also might include Russia’s DST Global and Yahoo’s Japanese partner Masa Son; former News Corp. exec Peter Chernin, who is partnered with Providence Equity Partners; and the possibility that Yahoo’s Chinese partner, Alibaba Group, might consider entering the fray in what could be a reverse merger of sorts.

Also being rung up by some of the parties: Microsoft — Yahoo’s advertising and search partner — which is being seen as a possibly moneybags in any deal.

The movement among these investors is against a backdrop of increasing pressure for Yahoo’s board, after it fired CEO Carol Bartz last week. In the wake of the dramatic move, shareholders have upped criticism of Bostock and the board and have been looking hard for alternatives.

Today, that included hedge fund investor Daniel Loeb of Third Point, which has a 5.1 percent stake in Yahoo. In a filing this morning, he said he might increase that amount, and described a testy hour-long phone call he had earlier this week with Bostock that ended abruptly with a hang-up from Yahoo.

Sources said Loeb called Bostock a “fool,” among other not-so-nice names, on the call and asked for Yang’s help in dumping him.

This comes as exactly no surprise, given his previously strong letter in which Loeb called for Bostock’s ouster.

Loeb has been calling out Bostock — who is also on the boards of Morgan Stanley and Delta Airlines — for a series of gaffes at Yahoo since he became chairman in 2008 (he’s been on the board since 2003).

Those have included: Yahoo’s bungled effort to stave off a takeover by Microsoft several years ago; the too-long enthusiasm for Bartz, who was hired in early 2009 and fired last week; sitting unusually still as competitors such as Facebook, Google and more have out-innovated and outgrown Yahoo; and, of course, the falling knife of a stock, which has dropped precipitously since Bostock has been in charge of the board.

As Loeb wrote in a letter he sent to the company last week:

“It is time that certain members of this Board were held accountable for its past failures and their individual roles. Accordingly, we insist that Mr. Bostock, who championed Ms. Bartz’s hiring and led the charge against the Microsoft deal, promptly resign from the Board.”

Loeb is likely to add to that later today at a high-profile investor conference in New York, where the colorful but tough-talking investor is sure to add more logs to the fire.

But it not only him. Other major shareholders of Yahoo are also in touch with possible outside buyers, seeking a change at the long-troubled company, after its shares have remained in the doldrums, its attrition rate of employees has spiked and its product pipeline has slowed to drip.

This has all been taking place — of course — during one of tech biggest and most innovative booms, in which Yahoo competitors have grown strongly.

Enter Marc Andreessen, the well-known entrepreneur who has transformed himself into one of Silicon Valley’s most powerful venture capitalists.

He and his partner Ben Horowitz recently pulled off another similar deal — with Silver Lake — to take control of a then-troubled Skype. They later flipped it to Microsoft for a large return.

Sources familiar with the situation said the pair have become increasingly intrigued by the situation at Yahoo and believe that its assets and brand are still strong, despite its management turmoil in recent years.

One problem is the huge cost of almost any kind of takeover and also the complexity, given much of Yahoo’s $18.5 billion valuation is due to its Asian assets.

The sale of those shares, as well as the selling off of some of Yahoo’s less core properties, makes for a very complicated situation for anyone.

Said one person looking at the company: “It is one of the more massive hairballs around.”

That is a common sentiment among many of those looking at Yahoo, which has hired Allen & Co. to manage the process.

Also of worry is a bid that would include too many players. Yahoo has long been plagued by indecisiveness on the part of its execs and, mostly, its board.

But one thing all the possible buyers of Yahoo, as well as an increasing number of its shareholders, agree on: The Yahoo board needs a major shake-up.

As Loeb wrote last week, which many I interviewed also echoed:

“This letter details our principled demands for sweeping changes in both the Board of Directors (the “Board”) and Company leadership, and outlines the hidden value of Yahoo, which has been severely damaged — but not irreparably — by poor management and governance.”

The firing of Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz leaves open one of the bigger and more difficult jobs in tech — one that has taken its toll on many.

Nonetheless, rapper Snoop Dogg stepped right up to the Twitter plate yesterday, as soon as news broke of the ouster.

Tweeted Snoop Dogg:

“Im takn over as tha CEO of Yahoo. Need sum of tha Snoop Dogg content ya digg. Nuff Said.”

Not nearly nuff!

Thus, while the Yahoo board has yet to begin a search, I have already been hard at work on selecting the next CEO.

(Last time, the company took none of my suggestions, but after the most recent result, the directors might want to pay mind!)

Sources said Yahoo is looking for an experienced Internet type, either from inside or outside the company.

“Yahoo has put its flag in the ground as a digital media company with a technology base,” said one source. “The job requires big buckets of expertise and needs someone who will grow the company.”

Here I go with the outsiders:

Peter Chernin: The former News Corp. exec has been eyeing Yahoo for a possible takeover with other investors. Both Yahoo and I had picked him when co-founder Jerry Yang stepped down as CEO almost three years ago, and he had declined the offer. This time, perhaps a big chunk of the company and total autonomy would work, even if making a hit like “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” is more fun.

Sheryl Sandberg: The COO of Facebook is sort of the anti-Bartz, with a smooth and efficient persona, and she is an experienced tech exec. But the former Google exec is at a place of growth at the social networking site, and is unlikely to want to leave the big show, especially since a blockbuster IPO is looming.

Jason Kilar: The Hulu CEO is in the midst of the process of selling the premium video service, with Yahoo as a bidder. While he has some tense relations with the studios, Kilar is top notch in his dedication to consumer products, and has a lot of experience from his stint at Amazon, too.

Dan Rosensweig: Currently CEO of IPO-headed Chegg textbook rental service, the former Yahoo exec never got a chance to run the company as its top leader. Well-connected and still well-liked by the troops at Yahoo, it still would be pretty hard for him to go home again.

Dave Goldberg: Sure, he’s married to Sandberg (see above), but the savvy CEO of polling phenom SurveyMonkey is one of the sharpest thinkers in Silicon Valley. He sold his music company to Yahoo many years ago and has a strong background in consumer online services.

Jon Miller: The chief digital exec at News Corp. almost got the CEO spot years ago when Carl Icahn was agitating for change at Yahoo, before Time Warner blocked him via a noncompete. With the mishegas at the media giant, and dwindling digital businesses there, it might be a good escape hatch for Miller.

Susan Wojcicki: The accomplished Google exec, who runs all its ad products, has the kind of calm, cool, collected persona that Yahoo could use right about now. The search giant was founded in her garage, and she has been a key part of its success since then. Wojcicki is also an understated class act in hey-look-at-me Silicon Valley.

Todd Bradley: The Hewlett-Packard exec just got blindsided when the company kicked webOS to the curb. While he is in line to run a possible spinoff of the device business, Bradley might also want to jump out of the frying pan into the fire.

Mike McCue: The CEO of Flipboard would certainly energize Yahoo with his intense focus on quality and consumer delight. The news app start-up could be a good addition to Yahoo, and McCue, the former Netscape and Microsoft exec who is well-liked in the Internet scene, would be, too.

Joanne Bradford: The former Yahoo advertising head bolted Bartz’s regime early on to run revenue for Demand Media. Well-liked in the ad business, she also knows where all the bodies are buried at Yahoo. Since ads and media are key at the company, she’d make an interesting choice.

Yusuf Mehdi: The Microsoft online exec would also be a left-field candidate to run Yahoo, given his even-keeled personality and longtime experience in the sector. And, though pricey, Mehdi’s impact on Bing search has been important. But he’s also been involved in the software giant’s lackluster ad and search partnership and still has not turned around the situation at MSN.

Kevin Johnson: The former Microsoft exec and current CEO of Juniper was once slated to be the CEO of Yahoo, had Microsoft managed to win the company in its hostile takeover attempt. In fact, Johnson was the architect of the idea of Yahoo running the media and Microsoft running the tech.

Tim Armstrong: Well, he might have been a good candidate before the downward slide of AOL and a recent series of questionable judgments. If Armstrong can’t keep a loud tech blogger in line, it’s not clear he can wrangle the Yahoo beast.

And here’s the insider scoop:

Ross Levinsohn: The former News Corp. exec is running the Americas for Yahoo, which puts him in charge of the company’s key businesses. But he’s still struggling to turn the ad business around, and how well he does that could be a major determinant of his success. But fantastic hair!

Blake Irving: The former Microsoft exec has an amiable nature and is well-liked at Yahoo, but he still needs to show that the company can ship some innovative products, and quickly. Like Livestand, the news reader, which is muchly late.

David Kenny: The Yahoo board member is now president of Akamai, which might preclude him from the job. But the well-regarded exec — he’s a snazzy dresser, too — ran one of the Internet’s top digital ad agencies and now has tech chops from the content delivery network.

Memo to Yahoo board: I have a million more ideas, from former Viacom exec Tom Freston to former Yahoo board member Eric Hippeau. Or why not bring back a passel of former Yahoos to advise, such as former CEO Terry Semel or former president Sue Decker?

Or Oprah! I hear Winfrey will be in Silicon Valley later this week, and she has a lot more free time now.

Like Snoop Dogg, she would fo shizzle be the bomb to cover.

Related posts

• As Yahoo Continues to Wobble, Investors (And Board) Eye Options
• Exclusive: Carol Bartz Out at Yahoo; CFO Tim Morse Named Interim CEO
• Carol Bartz’s Last F%*& You — Now Aimed at Yahoo Board
• Yahoo’s Statement on Bartz Ouster
• Wall Street Likes Bartz’s Firing — Yahoo Stock Spikes on News
• My Picks for Yahoo’s Next CEO — Maybe Snoop Dogg, Ya Digg?

Closing another chapter on one of the Internet’s most iconic properties, Myspace has been sold to to Specific Media, an advertising network, for $35 million.

Sources close to the situation said the deal is being completed today, although it has not been officially signed. Myspace’s owner, News Corp., will hold on to a very small stake of less than five percent.

[UPDATE: It's official; see the press release and memo to Myspace employees from outgoing CEO Mike Jones below.]

AllThingsD broke news of Specific’s interest in Myspace yesterday.

The price is well below the $100 million that News Corp. had been hoping for, and a chasm away from Myspace’s one-time billion valuation.

The deal includes a halving of Myspace’s staff of 400, as well as other cost cuts. It’s likely Jones and other top staff will remain only for an interim period.

News Corp. bought Myspace for $580 million in 2005, and made that back via a lucrative advertising deal with Google when the social networking site was flying high.

But that was another time — the media giant has been trying to sell the site before the end of its fiscal year, which falls on Thursday, in order to get it off the books.

There were several other bidders in the process, including separate efforts by the two co-founders of Myspace, Chris DeWolfe and Tom Anderson.

More recently, the preferred acquirer was a group that included Activision CEO Bobby Kotick, but it fell apart over a number of issues.

This week, it came down to Specific and also a private equity firm, Golden Gate Capital.

According to a report yesterday in The Wall Street Journal:

Founded in 1999 by Tim Vanderhook and his brothers Chris and Russell, Specific Media helps marketers buy digital ads across the Web, online video, mobile and even the TV. The Irvine, Calif., company got its start brokering ad space for websites and quickly moved into the fast-growing business of collecting and using Web browsing, demographic, geographic and other profile information about consumers to target ads. The company now ranks among the largest online advertising networks in the country, reaching 170.9 million unique U.S. visitors in May, or about 79% of the U.S. Internet users, according to comScore Inc.

A Myspace deal would give the company access to data about Myspace users to be used for ad targeting. It also would transform the firm into a media company with its own ad space to sell instead of simply an online ad technology firm that brokers ad space on behalf of other websites.

Specific Media’s executive team includes knowledge of the inner-workings at Myspace, with two executives who previously worked at Fox Audience Network, News Corp.’s online advertising unit that sold ads for Myspace.

Specific Media has raised more than $110 million in funding, closing a $100 million round of financing from private-equity firm Francisco Partners in 2007. Since then, the company has acquired a couple of digital advertising companies, including online video company Broadband Enterprises and an Amsterdam ad technology company.

Here is the official press release and the memo to Myspace staff from Jones:

From: Mike Jones
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 11:26 AM
To: Myspace All
Subject: IMPORTANT COMPANY NEWS
Importance: High

Myspacers,

Today, we are announcing that Myspace will be acquired by Specific Media, one of the world’s leading online media and advertising platforms. Over the next few days you will be hearing from the team at Specific, including their CEO, Tim Vanderhook, regarding their exciting plans for Myspace and how it fits in with the overall vision of their company.

In conjunction with the deal, we are conducting a series of restructuring initiatives, including a significant reduction in our workforce. I will assist Specific with the transition over the next two months before departing my role as Myspace CEO.

I wanted to take a minute to thank you all for the incredible experience it has been to lead this company and to work closely with all of you over the past several years. While I regret we won’t be working together at Myspace any longer, I am very proud of the work we have done here and believe we have performed with excellence — even under extremely difficult circumstances.

My time here at Myspace represents the most engaging and challenging time of my professional career. I have found our team to be comprised of the best people I have come across in our industry.

You can read the press release below. Once again, thank you for all of your hard work and dedication.

Thanks,

-M

SPECIFIC MEDIA ACQUIRES MYSPACE FROM NEWS CORPORATION

Los Angeles, Calif. — June 29, 2011 — Specific Media, a digital media company, today announced it has acquired Myspace from News Corporation. As part of the agreement, News Corporation will take a minority equity stake in Specific Media. Additional terms of the agreement are confidential and will not be disclosed.

“Myspace is a recognized leader that has pioneered the social media space. The company has transformed the ways in which audiences discover, consume and engage with content online,” said Tim Vanderhook, Specific Media CEO. “There are many synergies between our companies as we are both focused on enhancing digital media experiences by fueling connections with relevance and interest. We look forward to combining our platforms to drive the next generation of digital innovation.”

Specific Media is an innovative global interactive media company that enables advertisers to connect with consumers in meaningful, impactful and relevant ways. Founded in 1999 by brothers Tim, Chris and Russell Vanderhook, Specific Media is currently headquartered in Irvine, CA and operates offices around the world.

(Full disclosure: News Corp. owns Dow Jones, which owns this site.)

It was just supposed to be a three-hour tour, um, quick sale process!

But, like a storm-tossed ship looking for any safe harbor, the Myspace sale is still chugging along, with a deal that continues to be tossed around amongst low-paying and new lesser known buyers who are now in the $20 million to $30 million range, said sources close to the situation.

The price, said others, could go as high as $35 million, but it’s far cry from the $100 million that News Corp. had been aiming for.

As part of the deal, sources said the News Corp. unit will be making significant cuts in staff and costs — up to 50 percent or more — all contingent on the purchaser. The staff cuts are, obviously, directly related to the transaction and the winning bidder.

The media giant might also retain a small minority stake.

The two names — Specific Media and Golden Gate Capital — that are now in the forefront for an acquisition deal that News Corp. hopes to complete by Thursday, its fiscal year end, have not been among the acquirers mentioned previously in the myriad of reports about the deal.

Specific Media — a large, if lesser known, advertising network — seems to be in the lead, said sources. It has been around for a half-decade and has been funded by Francisco Partners.

Golden Gate Capital is a private equity firm with $9 billion under management, which has mostly specialized in turning around companies. It has never invested in a consumer Internet company.

Both companies, sources said, will focus Myspace on music, although it is not clear which rights the site has with music labels will transfer to a new owner.

Until last week, the preferred deal for Myspace centered on an investor group that included Activision CEO Bobby Kotick and in which News Corp. (which also owns this Web site) would retain a large minority ownership stake.

But sources said there were some transactional and legal complexities that made it less attractive and News Corp. opened up the deal talks with others again last week.

Golden Capital and Specific Media emerged most aggressively, although there still remain other interested parties, sources close to the situation said, among them another investor group that includes Myspace co-founder Tom Anderson, one its other co-founder Chris DeWolfe is part of and also interest from the Criterion Capital Partners, which bought AOL’s Bebo social networking site on the cheap a year ago.

But it’s now come down to time constraints and an agreement that can be reached before the end of this month, which is also the end of the media giant’s fiscal year.

In other words, let’s get Myspace off the books for 2012!

How it came to this will likely be the focus of many a business school case. After a spectacular start, Myspace has fallen on hard times both in terms of traffic and advertising revenues.

That’s why the music-focused social networking site has not sat exactly in the catbird’s seat in terms of negotiating leverage.

While there were some rumors last week that News Corp. would close Myspace down, the sale to a small player and the layoffs are the likely outcome.

While that’s cold comfort to its employees, it’s about the best Myspace can hope for right now.

(Full disclosure: News Corp. owns Dow Jones, which owns this site.)

According to sources close to the situation, News Corp. is down to one possible investing group in its quest to make lemonade out of the lemon that its Myspace social entertainment hub has become.

In the lastest of many scenarios considered, several sources said its owner, News Corp., will continue to own about 20 percent of Myspace. The main bidder is a dark horse bidding group, which includes Activision Chairman and CEO Bobby Kotick as one of the potential investors.

The deal, cautioned sources, is not final and could easily fall apart.

Interestingly, if such a deal is struck, he would apparently be involved as an individual and not for the giant gaming company, and would play no management role in the company.

Kotick would presumably need permission from Activision for such a high-profile investment, even if he played a smaller role.

Kotick’s possible involvement has not been mentioned in previous reports.

Sources said the other possible bidders — including music video service Vevo, a group including Myspace founder and former CEO Chris DeWolfe, an internal effort by current CEO Mike Jones, several private equity firms and even myYearbook — mentioned in past reports have not worked out for various reasons.

Vevo had seemed the likeliest winner, but its bid appears to have foundered for now, due to the complex nature of its music label ownership.

It is not clear what the price will be for Myspace, which was once the leading social networking site before the world dis-Liked it for Facebook.

One thing is certain: It is nowhere near the $100 million that News Corp. reportedly sought.

The site — even after an overhaul to focus on entertainment — has recently been losing money and traffic, although it is still a large destination on the Web.

News Corp. declined comment, as did Kotick.

Yes, Myspace is still for sale.

But, no, no one has yet made a good enough bid–in other words, at the more than $100 million level its owner, News Corp., has sought–to knock out anyone else.

And who knows who will, as those working on the deal gave a deadline today for any revised bids for the social entertainment hub.

Among those remaining in the running: two strategic bidders, although the CEO of the Vevo music service has denied interest; several private equity players, including Criterion Capital Partners, which bought Bebo from AOL for a song; and an aggressive inside effort by CEO Michael Jones, which would include venture investors and a possible continued smaller ownership by News Corp. (News Corp. also owns Dow Jones, which owns this Web site.)

News Corp. is holding out for a few more bids today from those who had expressed initial interest, said sources close to the situation, after the company provided additional information about long troubled service.

That included data showing some increased user engagement from a recent Facebook artists profile app launch and a new music playback system, among other efforts to revive Myspace.

But, added sources, this is likely to be the final call for bids, since News Corp. reportedly would like to complete the deal and get Myspace off its books before end of its fiscal quarter this month.

“I think somebody with some brains and guts could do pretty well with the property,” said one News Corp. insider, noting that the Chinese social site Renren is smaller than Myspace in both size and revenue, even though it now has a $5 billion valuation after its recent IPO.

Perhaps, but such a windfall seems about as unlikely as Myspace winning back its once-might social networking crown.

Thus, finally settling on a decent bidder is Myspace’s best–and perhaps only–hope going forward.

No, Facebook is not in serious talks to buy Foursquare. Yet.

No, Microsoft is not poised to snap up the social location start-up, beyond a cursory should-we-look query to itself. Yet.

No, there is no longer a crazy bidding war going on among major venture players in Silicon Valley, all waiting with bated breath for Foursquare founder and CEO Dennis Crowley to make a decision about which of them he will deign to take a big pile of money from.

In fact, Andreessen Horowitz partner Ben Horowitz was entirely correct when he told BoomTown in an interview earlier this week that his firm was dropping out of the race to fund the company:

“This is playing out too much in public and clearly someone has an interesting agenda here, so this is not something we want to participate in.”

Interesting indeed, although cloddish is probably a better word for what the simple process of deciding on funding versus selling has turned into.

New York-based Foursquare, which hit one million users yesterday and is unprofitable, lets its users “check in” from a variety of locations.

It’s an innovative and entertaining concept and a lot of fun, unless you are among those trying to do a deal with Foursquare.

From VCs to Facebook to Yahoo (YHOO)–the only serious bid to acquire Foursquare so far–sources close to every single player mentioned in the hubbub around the start-up expressed stupefaction about the confusion Crowley’s endless Hamlet act has resulted in.

And, in no small measure, annoyance too.

“It’s hard to make rivals all agree on one thing,” said one person close to the situation. “But this just became a pig pile.”

Indeed, that was the impetus for Horowitz speaking on the record about the experience of dealing with Foursquare, a move that was unprecedented.

“If the process was changed, we still like the company,” said Horowitz. “But since it has been long and undefined, it is prone to manipulation.”

While some have suggested that this was just sour grapes on the part of Andreessen Horowitz because Foursquare decided to pass on a lower funding offer it made, others involved–including rival VCs–applauded the move.

“Foursquare is being just as vague and unclear to us, which I think means they don’t know what they want,” said one VC, who has been considering funding it. “No one minds losing out to someone else, as much as feeling like you’re being played.”

The game got another boost today by rumors that Facebook is intently interested in buying Foursquare and delayed its announcement of location features at its f8 conference Wednesday because the social networking site did not want to scotch the impending deal.

Actually, no.

What is true is that Crowley has been to visit Facebook execs, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and there were only cursory discussions about a range of possible ways to work together, including a plan to federate third-party location services at the social networking giant.

Also, why not meet?

“It’s was a free look,” said one person with knowledge of the chitchat, the kind that happen all the time between Facebook and companies. “You always say yes when people want to talk, because you can learn a lot.”

As to a purchase: Unlikely at the price of $100 million-plus that Yahoo offered, if ever.

“Yahoo needs a solution in the mobile location and local space, because they have nothing,” said another source of the build-or-buy decision. “Facebook has all the tools it needs, as well as 500 million users used to updating their statuses, so what Foursquare is doing is not hard to replicate.”

As for Microsoft (MSFT), sources said, it, as well as companies like Nokia (NOK), simply have had their interest piqued by all the noise surrounding Foursquare.

That is also typical around hot start-ups, and perhaps more so with Microsoft, since it recently signed a deal with Foursquare to integrate its customer data with the Bing search service’s map apps.

So what’s left? Well, Silicon Valley VCs, of course, who are always interested in a deal.

Despite negligible revenue, Foursquare raised $1.35 million last August, valuing it at $6 million.

Foursquare’s current VCs include O’Reilly AlphaTech Ventures and Union Square Ventures, as well as a spate of well-known angel investors.

New VC valuations have hovered from $50 million to $80 million.

But both Accel Partners and Redpoint Ventures, sources said, do not have active talks going on with Foursquare.

One wild card: Free-spending Russian moneybags Digital Sky Technologies, which has already sunk copious funds into Facebook and games powerhouse Zynga.

For certain, after Andreessen Horowitz pulled out, the last one standing seems to be Gideon Yu of Khosla Ventures.

And while the eager firm has made an offer, sources said, it has yet to hear back from Foursquare, which is taking its sweet time mulling things over, which can’t make Yu happy either.

In other words, mangling the old Eagles song, “Hotel California”: You can check in any time you like, but you can never leave.

So while Crowley searches for the most lucrative exit, let’s enjoy the Eagles classic in this video:

EAGLES – HOTEL CALIFORNIA
Uploaded by hushhush112. – Music videos, artist interviews, concerts and more.

Say this for Eric Schmidt–he’s keeping his word. This fall, the Google CEO said his company was getting back into M&A, and he has indeed been making a slew of deals at varying price points.

The most recent: The company is in talks to purchase local review site Yelp, at a price that reportedly could top $500 million.

If the deal does go through, Google will have snapped up seven companies since August, for what I estimate is a total of $1.5 billion. That’s about what it dropped in one fell swoop on YouTube, more than three years ago.

Yelp is being repped by George Boutros from Credit Suisse First Boston, a source familiar with the negotiations tells me. The talks were first reported by TechCrunch.

When Google (GOOG) buys a company, it generally wants its technology and the people behind it and is less interested in the existing business itself or the audience it has accumulated.

Interesting to see if this is the case with Yelp, whose main asset appears to be a dedicated community of users who chatter about restaurants, stores, etc., and have churned out some eight million reviews in 30 cities.

Those reviews help draw local advertisers, and that’s a market that Google, along with everyone else on the Web, has been trying to crack for years, with limited success.

The major problem seems to be that local merchants are still most comfortable buying ads in venues they already understand, like Yellow Pages directories. And they like to buy them from humans–not from the self-serve platforms that Web players would like them to use.

I don’t know if Yelp has cracked the code here, either. But perhaps Google thinks the data Yelp generates is valuable enough to justify a big buy.

Of course, Facebook and Microsoft (MSFT) are intensely interested in local advertising too, so they are logical bidders as well.

And normally, you’d include Yahoo (YHOO) in this list, but with a couple of exceptions, the Carol Bartz era has been about selling, not buying. Maybe that will change now that the company has a new M&A boss.

By the way: If Google does get Yelp, bear in mind that the deal will almost certainly generate some kind of regulatory review, as the company’s AdMob already has.

That’s how much an unnamed bidder has ponied up, via a Microsoft charity auction, for a look-see at Gates’s place. After the tour of the 48,000-square-foot complex, which is located outside Seattle on the shores of Lake Washington, the winner gets to nosh on some appetizers, TechFlash reports.

A year ago, the same tour, of the same house, fetched just $8,600. Go figure.

All of that is out of your price range? I understand. Here, for us proles, is a free, “virtual” tour of the place:

[Image credit: Tiktik]

That has to be unnerving, but I can at least offer a little bit of comfort: The worst-case scenario the employees would be facing had they been purchased by private equity firm ZelnickMedia, which was also bidding for the publication.

The short version: Almost everybody gets fired.

Here’s the longer version of the plan, provided to me by a person familiar with ZelnickMedia’s bid. It sounds like a plausible idea for a PE group that specializes in turning around distressed assets–and a chilling one for anybody who draws a paycheck at BusinessWeek:

• Wind down BusinessWeek’s print business “as profitably as possible”–the company would have to honor existing subscriptions and could still sell ads in the magazine. But the focus would be on building up BusinessWeek’s Web site, which has a decent-sized footprint, though not a huge one.
• Dump almost all of the company’s newsgathering staff and outsource most of that work to Thomson Reuters (TRI).
• Employ a small handful of editorial employees–perhaps 20, down from the 200-plus who are there now. Some of them would run a Huffington Post-style aggregation site that produces no original content, and some more expensive hires would produce a smattering of high-quality reporting and writing designed to burnish/sustain the BusinessWeek brand. “Just to give it uniqueness and sizzle,” my source tells me.
• Dump most of the existing business side, as well, but overhaul and bulk up the sales force.

The insult-to-injury kicker: Under ZelnickMedia’s proposal, the buyer wouldn’t pay a dime for the publication it intended to rebuild. Instead, McGraw-Hill would pay the fund to take the publication off its hands. If that sounds implausible, consider that McGraw-Hill just announced that it will save up to $25 million next year by not owning the title.

Given the above terms, it’s easy enough to see why McGraw-Hill ended up going with Bloomberg. For starters, the winning bidder actually paid cash for the magazine, and McGraw-Hill will end up netting a $5.9 million gain, after taxes, on the deal.

Also important: McGraw-Hill won’t have to anguish as it watches one of its flagship properties get dismantled.

So what will happen to BusinessWeek now that Bloomberg owns it? Nothing nearly so drastic, at least in the short term. For now, Bloomberg is talking about bulking up the title, not shredding it, so that’s a good sign for both employees and readers.

Alas, Bloomberg can’t take on all of the magazine employees looking for jobs, and that pool is only going to get bigger.

Forbes slashed deep into its staff this week, and next week Time Warner’s (TWX) Time Inc. will lay out some of its layoff goals. I’ve heard Time Inc. employees refer to layoff plans as “tree-trimming” or “surgical,” but I think the trimming will feel much blunter to the folks who lose their jobs. The publisher’s cost-cutting plans include hundreds of layoffs–something likely similar to the cuts the publisher went through last year, I’m told.

The New York Post’s Keith Kelly reports today that Time’s News and Finance unit, which includes Time, Fortune and Sports Illustrated, will be particularly hard hit, and I’ve confirmed that myself.

UPDATE: No surprise here: BusinessWeek President Keith Fox is stepping down. Mild surprise: He’s staying on at McGraw-Hill. Here’s his memo:

When we announced that McGraw-Hill was exploring strategic options for BusinessWeek, I promised to communicate with you as openly and often as I could. In this spirit, I wanted each of you to know that I will be remaining with McGraw-Hill after the deal with Bloomberg is closed. I will continue to play a role in the integration post-close and plan to take on a new role at McGraw-Hill in 2010.

During this process, our collective goal was to find the best buyer for BusinessWeek. I am proud that I played a role in ensuring that BusinessWeek has a new home at Bloomberg, where it will thrive under the leadership of Norman Pearlstine. I am committed to the transition and helping in any way that I can.

It’s been a privilege to be the President of BusinessWeek. I thank Terry McGraw for his confidence and trust in me and Glenn Goldberg for his support, direction, clarity, and sense of humor. I’ve also been a member of an amazing team which has navigated the transformation of the media environment with agility, focus, passion, and integrity.

The team–Steve Adler, Jessica Sibley, Tania Secor, Linda Brennan, Roger Neal, and Carl Fischer–is the best in the industry. Like BusinessWeek, they have bright futures ahead of them. I will miss the daily interaction, but I am wiser (and a little grayer) because of their collaborative spirit and desire to make BusinessWeek the global leader in business that it is today.

I also have a special thanks to Patricia Hipplewith, my assistant, who juggled my calendar, protected me from solicitors, and kept me on schedule and well fed! She is the personification of commitment and integrity.

I am humbled by BusinessWeek’s 80-year history. Thank you for allowing me to play a small part in it.

Keith

That’s the high end of the range Bloomberg will be paying for BusinessWeek, reports BusinessWeek, which has done an excellent job of covering its sale. One important note to make about the price: Those liabilities could total up to $32 million, although it’s not clear whether Bloomberg will assume all of them.

Can’t call this one a surprise, as Bloomberg has reportedly been the lead bidder for some time now. BusinessWeek employees spent most of the day waiting for an announcement to that effect, and finally heard one, via Bloomberg’s wire service, shortly after 5 pm EDT.

Shortly after, BusinessWeek Editor Stephen J. Adler gathered his troops for an informal meeting to discuss the news and to discuss some blocking and tackling: No news on rumored (and expected) layoffs. But he did tell staffers that those who are cut after the deal closes later this year will receive the same severance package they would have gotten if they were still employed by McGraw-Hill (MHP), the magazine’s parent company.

There most certainly will be cuts: McGraw-Hill is selling the 80-year-old magazine because it’s a money pit that was losing between $20 million and $40 million a year, depending on your accounting. And the publisher’s bankers promoted a layoff plan as part of the sales process.

What exactly deep-pocketed Bloomberg intends to do with the publication, however, is unclear. The company, which makes its money renting its namesake terminals to Wall Street traders, is thought to be running its magazine and TV news operations at a loss as it tries to grab a footprint in consumer media. It may ultimately be willing to run BusinessWeek at a loss for a while, as well.

And now a tiny bit of context: At the beginning of this year, there were four major business magazines. Now one, Condé Nast’s Portfolio, has been shut down and another sold at a fire-sale price. Meanwhile, my former colleagues at Forbes expect to hear about yet another restructuring round in the near future. And while Time Warner (TWX) CEO Jeff Bewkes was careful to list Fortune magazine among the core assets at his company’s Time Inc. unit at an industry event today, that can’t assure the queasy souls who work there.

Here’s the memo to BusinessWeek staff from the magazine’s BusinessWeek publisher, Keith Fox:

All,

Moments ago, McGraw-Hill announced that Bloomberg L.P. has agreed to acquire BusinessWeek. This is exciting news on many levels. Joining forces with another of the world’s leading news organizations enhances BusinessWeek’s ability to further serve our global audience and our valued customers. And Bloomberg will gain a powerful brand with a history of editorial excellence and strong reach among business professionals.

While the ink is barely dry and the long-term plans are being worked out, we do know that Bloomberg is committed to and values our brand, our editorial integrity, and our ability to drive advertising, circulation, and new digital revenue.

BusinessWeek will strengthen Bloomberg’s online, television and mobile products and creates an opportunity for Bloomberg News to reach decision makers in the c-suite. Online, BusinessWeek.com and Bloomberg.com will have more unique visitors than any non-portal business and financial site. In addition, Bloomberg expects to build television content around the powerful BusinessWeek brand and our world-class journalists.

I am tremendously proud of the work all of you have done in the past few months. Despite the uncertainty, we have continued to produce first-class products for our readers and advertisers, and I want to thank you deeply for your efforts. I also want to thank Steve Adler, Jessica Sibley, Tania Secor, Roger Neal, and Linda Brennan, for their extraordinary ability to personify the best of BusinessWeek during the deal process while leading their respective organizations.

I know that while this announcement answers some of the questions you’ve been asking over the past few months, it raises others. The sale is expected to close by the end of the year and we will be working on transition plans in the coming weeks. I can tell you that all BusinessWeek staffers will remain employees of The McGraw-Hill Companies until the transaction closes, and that it will be business as usual–producing the magazine and the website, and serving our advertisers–through the close. We will give you more details when we can.

We’ll be holding a town hall meeting later today at 5:45 EST, after which a Q&A will be provided to all employees; you will receive more details shortly. A call for the Asia teams will be scheduled shortly.

Again, I want to thank you all for your professionalism and dedication during a challenging time. I look forward to working with you on the promising next chapter in BusinessWeek’s history.

Keith

Nortel Networks has rejected Research In Motion’s bid for the wireless infrastructure assets Nortel is unloading as part of bankruptcy proceedings. RIM said Monday night that it intended to offer $1.1 billion for Nortel’s CDMA and LTE businesses, but was told it could do so only if it agreed not to bid on other Nortel assets, something it had intended to do.

In a blistering statement, RIM (RIMM) accused Nortel (NT) of imposing unfair conditions on the court-supervised auction of its assets and of jeopardizing their continued Canadian ownership.

“RIM is extremely disappointed that Nortel’s world leading technology, the development of which has been funded in part by Canadian taxpayers, seems destined to leave Canada,” said co-CEO Jim Balsillie. “RIM remains extremely interested in acquiring Nortel assets through a Canadian ownership solution that would serve the dual purpose of keeping key wireless technologies in Canada and extending RIM’s leadership in the research, development and distribution of leading edge wireless solutions, but RIM has found itself blocked at every turn.”

Why? Nortel says RIM was late to the game and hasn’t followed proper auction procedure.

“Other parties moved expeditiously to comply with the court approved procedures to become a qualified bidder,” the company said in a statement. “It was not until July 15, 2009, that RIM submitted a letter to Nortel asking to be a qualified bidder and since that time, Nortel has diligently attempted to work with RIM on acceptable confidentiality terms relating to Nortel’s valuable intellectual property assets, but RIM refused to comply with the court approved procedures.”

What’s really going on here? It’s hard to say, though clearly there’s more to the story. After all, RIM’s $1.1 billion bid is far, far more than Nokia Siemens’s stalking horse bid of $650 million. And what does RIM want with the CDMA business, anyway?