Make no mistake–there are no definitive offers on the table to do a variety of takeover deals of Yahoo by either private equity moneybags or from big media giants such as News Corp. or smaller Web firms such as AOL.

But that does not mean that major players are not circling Yahoo (YHOO) and assessing the situation aggressively, a fact reflected in the rise in the Internet giant’s stock price today based on the many rumors swirling around it.

Despite being news to some, BoomTown had previously written about all these various scenarios, including interest from News Corp. and AOL, after the recent departure of a trio of top Yahoo media and sales execs brought into sharp relief the pressure that CEO Carol Bartz is under to turn around the company.

Yahoo shares were up almost six percent to close at $15.25, a high of late. It is up to $16.20 in after-hours trading.

According to sources close to the situation, that’s because big PE firms such as Silver Lake Partners, as well as News Corp. (NWS), AOL (AOL) and others, all have their PowerPoints and speadsheets opened up to try to figure out if there is a deal to be made to buy all or a piece of Yahoo in the wake of corporate turmoil, slow revenue growth and weak stock under the leadership of CEO Carol Bartz.

Sources said the key players in the growing soap opera are the execs who run Yahoo-affiliated companies in Japan and China. That would be Masayoshi Son of Yahoo Japan and Jack Ma of the Alibaba Group.

Yahoo owns big and lucrative stakes in both companies, assets which make up a big part of the company’s current valuation.

The sale of those stakes is what has some investors interested, since–if thorny tax issues can be solved–it would make the purchase of part or all of the well-known Silicon Valley company very inexpensive in relative terms.

Sources added that any approach would have to be nonhostile, since Yahoo still has some stringent antitakeover provisions in place from a hostile attempt a few years ago by Microsoft (MSFT).

But alternate CEOs to Bartz are part of the ruminations:

As I wrote two weeks ago, which was again reported today:

Most frequently mentioned by big investors in Yahoo: AOL (AOL) and its CEO Tim Armstrong.

Armstrong, said sources, has not shied away from the idea of Yahoo acquiring AOL and installing him as CEO with Bartz as chairman. AOL’s valuation is just $2.65 billion.

Although AOL has also been trying to turn itself around and is in a much less powerful position than Yahoo, Wall Street likes Armstrong’s story for AOL as a modern-day media and media distribution company.

“At least he has a narrative that is believable,” said one big investor in both companies. “Bartz has no vision.”

Among the other credible candidates most mentioned: News Corp. digital head Jon Miller, if the media giant were part of any deal, and Juniper Networks (JNPR) CEO Kevin Johnson, who was the architect of the failed acquisition of Yahoo by Microsoft.

What’s interesting here is what the board–and, most specifically, co-founder and former CEO Jerry Yang–is doing now.

For certain, it is receiving an incoming flood of negative communications from big shareholders, most of whom are unhappy with Bartz’s management. One big investor recently told board members that their continued inaction in the face of all the trouble was unsettling.

One big event coming up is the third-quarter earnings report by Yahoo on Tuesday, after the market closes.

If Yahoo’s sales remain as flat as they were in the second quarter, even with improved earnings, there will be even more scrutiny of Bartz to find growth.

And if Yahoo misses? Watch out.

One way might be via a big acquisition. Yahoo has recently been contemplating the local space, especially social discounting phenom Groupon. But the price would have to be high, sources said–well above $2 billion in cash and stock.

Would such a bold move be enough to keep the predators of Yahoo at bay? We’ll see, as the purple world turns.

A Yahoo PR person declined to comment on the stock rise.

Of course, rising on speculation, a higher stock is a problem for acquirers, as it makes Yahoo more expensive. Still, sources said a Yahoo deal of about $20 a share is entirely “doable.”

Last week, BoomTown was in Washington, D.C., my old stomping grounds for 15 years, from attending Georgetown University as an undergraduate to covering the beginnings of the Internet at the Washington Post.

I miss a lot of things about living there, but most definitely not the poisonous political partisanship that you get sucked into from the minute you arrive.

Most recently, for example, it was ugly battles over financial reform, some tough remarks by President Barack Obama toward the GOP and–I swear–the “controversy” over some airbrushing of House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi on a magazine cover.

In other words, it does not take much for the denizens there to descend into the mud-slinging swamp the city was built on.

But it’s almost a relief to be in D.C. rather than in California, given how increasingly hostile the atmosphere is getting as a range of companies wrestle over a range of issues both key and trivial.

The hostilities especially center on the three main powers of Silicon Valley today: Google (GOOG), Apple (AAPL) and Facebook.

And, specifically, the conflicts include Apple versus Google and Adobe (ADBE) and HTC and the First Amendment; Google versus Apple and Facebook and Microsoft (MSFT) and the Federal Trade Commission and–oh, yes–China; and Facebook versus Google and Twitter and anyone who gets in the way of its Manifest Destiny of Like-buttoning the Web.

Even Yahoo (YHOO) is entering the fray, with CEO Carol Bartz taking please-don’t-forget-us shots at Google and Facebook recently.

The Apple shooting match with Adobe over its Flash video technology is perhaps the most riveting, especially because it is the computer giant’s CEO, Steve Jobs, personally and relentlessly conducting the assault.

Jobs called Adobe technology shoddy, Adobe execs called Jobs controlling, the blogosphere erupted.

While issues around the use of Flash are a lot more complex, of course, they illustrate just how much the digital sector is at a critical inflection point.

That’s especially true as the game moves from the laptop/desktop, Web-centric world to one more social, mobile and focused on innovative new devices, such as smartphones and tablets.

This means the potential for a shift in power, obviously–which, in turn, means more wrangling among and between the digital powers-that-be.

It’s the top of mind as the next D: All Things Digital conference approaches in less than a month. In our eighth foray out, there have never been more overt power struggles among the various players who will be onstage.

Last year, in our opening essay for D7, titled “Welcome to Web 3.0,” we made a prediction.

“So what’s the seminal development that’s ushering in the era of Web 3.0? It’s the real arrival, after years of false predictions, of the thin client, running clean, simple software, against cloud-based data and services,” we wrote, specifically referencing the growing popularity of Apple’s iPod and iPhone as the harbingers of this important trend.

We continued: “But this is not just about one company, one platform or even one form factor. No, this new phenomenon is about handheld computers from many companies, with software platforms and distribution mechanisms tightly tied to cloud-based services, whether they are multi-player games, e-commerce offerings or corporate databases.”

Looking back over the last year, we think we got it pretty right, as companies of all kinds and in all arenas raced to be part of the social, mobile, cloud-centered action.

This fusion and, really, collision of key trends will be at the heart of what we’ll be focusing on at D8 as the major companies in tech and media try to figure out how consumers want to conduct their digital lives going forward and with what devices.

And inevitably, that has begun to cause some major rifts among and between the powers that be throughout tech and media. It’s clear to us that a major realignment of consumer expectations and desires is taking place, along with a fundamental shift in how we all relate to computing.

Still, with all the changes, it’s important to keep a respectful tone, which seems to have gotten a bit lost of late, especially now when every tiny shift and disagreement enters the digital echo chamber and quickly moves from loud to strident.

Such noise inevitably makes the whole competitive necessity of Silicon Valley–which is one of its greatest assets, of course–seem tinny and small, much like what you hear out of Washington all the time.

One of the reasons I moved out West was that it always seemed that–whatever the rivalry or wrangling–Silicon Valley was much better than that.

So even though healthy and robust competition is what makes it all work in tech, as Sergeant Esterhaus of “Hill Street Blues” used to say in the trademark phrase, which you can see in this video, “Let’s be careful out there”:

[T-shirt photo courtesy of Zazzle]

Last week, BoomTown was in Washington, D.C., my old stomping grounds for 15 years, from attending Georgetown University as an undergraduate to covering the beginnings of the Internet at the Washington Post.

I miss a lot of things about living there, but most definitely not the poisonous political partisanship that you get sucked into from the minute you arrive.

Most recently, for example, it was ugly battles over financial reform, some tough remarks by President Barack Obama toward the GOP and–I swear–the “controversy” over some airbrushing of House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi on a magazine cover.

In other words, it does not take much for the denizens there to descend into the mud-slinging swamp the city was built on.

But it’s almost a relief to be in D.C. rather than in California, given how increasingly hostile the atmosphere is getting as a range of companies wrestle over a range of issues both key and trivial.

The hostilities especially center on the three main powers of Silicon Valley today: Google (GOOG), Apple (AAPL) and Facebook.

And, specifically, the conflicts include Apple versus Google and Adobe (ADBE) and HTC and the First Amendment; Google versus Apple and Facebook and Microsoft (MSFT) and the Federal Trade Commission and–oh, yes–China; and Facebook versus Google and Twitter and anyone who gets in the way of its Manifest Destiny of Like-buttoning the Web.

Even Yahoo (YHOO) is entering the fray, with CEO Carol Bartz taking please-don’t-forget-us shots at Google and Facebook recently.

The Apple shooting match with Adobe over its Flash video technology is perhaps the most riveting, especially because it is the computer giant’s CEO, Steve Jobs, personally and relentlessly conducting the assault.

Jobs called Adobe technology shoddy, Adobe execs called Jobs controlling, the blogosphere erupted.

While issues around the use of Flash are a lot more complex, of course, they illustrate just how much the digital sector is at a critical inflection point.

That’s especially true as the game moves from the laptop/desktop, Web-centric world to one more social, mobile and focused on innovative new devices, such as smartphones and tablets.

This means the potential for a shift in power, obviously–which, in turn, means more wrangling among and between the digital powers-that-be.

It’s the top of mind as the next D: All Things Digital conference approaches in less than a month. In our eighth foray out, there have never been more overt power struggles among the various players who will be onstage.

Last year, in our opening essay for D7, titled “Welcome to Web 3.0,” we made a prediction.

“So what’s the seminal development that’s ushering in the era of Web 3.0? It’s the real arrival, after years of false predictions, of the thin client, running clean, simple software, against cloud-based data and services,” we wrote, specifically referencing the growing popularity of Apple’s iPod and iPhone as the harbingers of this important trend.

We continued: “But this is not just about one company, one platform or even one form factor. No, this new phenomenon is about handheld computers from many companies, with software platforms and distribution mechanisms tightly tied to cloud-based services, whether they are multi-player games, e-commerce offerings or corporate databases.”

Looking back over the last year, we think we got it pretty right, as companies of all kinds and in all arenas raced to be part of the social, mobile, cloud-centered action.

This fusion and, really, collision of key trends will be at the heart of what we’ll be focusing on at D8 as the major companies in tech and media try to figure out how consumers want to conduct their digital lives going forward and with what devices.

And inevitably, that has begun to cause some major rifts among and between the powers that be throughout tech and media. It’s clear to us that a major realignment of consumer expectations and desires is taking place, along with a fundamental shift in how we all relate to computing.

Still, with all the changes, it’s important to keep a respectful tone, which seems to have gotten a bit lost of late, especially now when every tiny shift and disagreement enters the digital echo chamber and quickly moves from loud to strident.

Such noise inevitably makes the whole competitive necessity of Silicon Valley–which is one of its greatest assets, of course–seem tinny and small, much like what you hear out of Washington all the time.

One of the reasons I moved out West was that it always seemed that–whatever the rivalry or wrangling–Silicon Valley was much better than that.

So even though healthy and robust competition is what makes it all work in tech, as Sergeant Esterhaus of “Hill Street Blues” used to say in the trademark phrase, which you can see in this video, “Let’s be careful out there”:

[T-shirt photo courtesy of Zazzle]

As BoomTown reported on Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal is now reporting that Microsoft (MSFT) and Yahoo (YHOO) have been chatting away informally, after a week of faux-wrestling.

It’s been like WrestleMania, except without the excitement and anticipation. Also, no cool names or outfits.

As I posted on Tuesday:

While it is true, as we and everyone else have posted, that Yahoo and Microsoft still have not entered into or even scheduled any formal talks, even after the software giant’s threat to launch a hostile bid came and went over the weekend without action, it is also not true that there are no talks going on.

According to sources close to both companies, there are informal discussions now taking place between Yahoo and Microsoft–via bankers, board members, shareholders and others close to both companies–to try to prevent a hostile takeover scenario or the sudden withdrawal of Microsoft’s offer.

Both options are unattractive for a number of reasons to pretty much everyone and, in BoomTown’s opinion, an excellent example of how juvenile this takeover battle has become (or “amateur hour,” as one source close to both companies described it to me).

A hostile bid by Microsoft, for example, is profoundly distracting to both parties and could result in an exodus of Yahoo staff, along with being risky in terms of certain success for Microsoft.”

And from the Journal this afternoon:

The two sides and their advisers have had informal discussions over the past week, but have been stymied by a divide on the price Microsoft should pay to acquire Yahoo, say the people. Microsoft has been weighing whether to drop its bid or go hostile, and has promised to announce its decision this week. As of Thursday night, Microsoft was leaning toward going hostile, but the situation remained fluid, according to people familiar with the matter.

Now, people close to the two sides are attempting to avert that prospect with discussions they hope could lead to a negotiated outcome, say the people. Microsoft has wanted to avoid a hostile takeover battle, which could drag out and result in distraction and the loss of key Yahoo employees.”

Hopefully, we will find out this morning the 411 on the Microsoft’s (MSFT) latest parry in its attempted takeover of Yahoo (YHOO).

But, before that, let me get this straight: Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer now wants to go hostile on Yahoo with a proxy fight.

Because earlier this week, he sent smoke signals that he was considering raising the price of his takeover bid for Yahoo.

And just before that, Ballmer was going to walk away from the deal. Except, before that when he was ready to lower his offer.

But don’t forget the friendly path Ballmer was also promising. Even though his initial unsolicited offer started off back in February as, well, hostile.

Calling Dr. Phil!

Perhaps the wacky TV shrink can merge together Ballmer’s multiple personalities into one, much the same way he tried to mend Britney Spears.

OK, that did not go so well. But it couldn’t be worse than the confusion of intentions from Microsoft here, including the latest one reported by The Wall Street Journal’s crack team today that Ballmer had now selected hostile as his choice.

Here is Ballmer’s money quote, the likes of which a Zen master could not interpret: “With the right circumstances it’ll happen. Without the right circumstances it won’t happen.”

What? That just about covers every option possible and then some. This may even require an Oprah intervention.

Here’s BoomTown advice, which we reiterate from yesterday’s post: Offer $33 to $35 a share as a best and final, take-it-or-leave-it offer. Set a 48-hour deadline for Yahoo to enter negotiations. After that, initiate a proxy fight.

This says a lot of things. It says Microsoft is generous (and will even bid against itself). It says it has had it waiting for Yahoo to dangle Google (GOOG) or AOL (TWX) as alternatives. It says definitively that Microsoft wants Yahoo and will fight for it.

Most importantly, it says enough is enough.

And while this may seem like it says a lot of things, it doesn’t seem–as so much of what Ballmer has been saying so far says–like the rant of someone in need of help.

Because, as it stands for Ballmer, that’s what it sounds like right now.