Why would an outside, i.e. billboard advertising, subsidiary want to use the name "Clear Channel"? Who knows, but maybe iHeart selling its old moniker will provide them with enough cash to put KWDZ back on the air:
First, what was then Clear Channel bought a billboard company back in 2001. They named it (logically) Clear Channel Outdoor. Then they sold it a year ago to an outfit called Lamar Advertising. The customary thing to do in a case where the sold division has the same name (or previous name in this case) as the soon to be former parent company is to license the name for some period of time. I would presume they did this. Now, since iHeart isn't going to be using the Clear Channel name anymore it sounds like they're looking to squeeze some extra money out of it by selling it in full to the company that actually IS using it. This feels like not much of a story.
Not much of a story perhaps . . . but with iHeart's current debt load, I'm not surprised to see that they're trying to squeeze every dollar out of whatever assets they have to sell. With Cumulus having sold KRUZ for $55 K recently with no tower and no transmitter to go with the station's license, I'm really surprised iHeart hasn't sold off KWDZ yet.