Finally, Owen Van Natta is about to win out over a founder.

The former Facebook COO (pictured here) is poised to become the CEO of MySpace, replacing co-founder and current CEO Chris DeWolfe.

DeWolfe will likely get a title as a special adviser to MySpace in a deal that is still coming together.

Settling all the specifics could take at least a day and there is always the possibility that this changing-of-the-guard deal could fall apart. But multiple sources close to the situation said it is more just a matter of ironing out the details.

Thus, the die seems cast for Van Natta to take over the thorny job of rehauling MySpace, which is owned by News Corp. (NWS).

(News Corp. also owns Dow Jones, which owns this Web site).

In a post this morning, MediaMemo was the first to name Van Natta as the only candidate in the running to take over as leader of MySpace.

It’s familiar territory for him.

Van Natta never got the big job at Facebook, which is under the firm control of founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

But Van Natta–who got to Facebook in its early days after stints at various companies, including Amazon (AMZN)–was a key early player in making the social-networking site into the juggernaut it is today.

He played a large role in its advertising and investment deals with Microsoft (MSFT), for example, as well as in hiring many of its current execs.

But, like many at Facebook, Van Natta left Facebook in early 2008 under tense circumstances, although he now is on good terms with Zuckerberg and others at Facebook.

Maybe not any longer.

In a delicious digital irony, he will be taking on Facebook head on, as MySpace–once the momentum player in the space–tries to regain its step against Facebook.

Van Natta is currently CEO of music start-up Project Playlist and it is not yet clear what will happen there. When he was previously talking to MySpace about running its music site, there was speculation that it might buy the start-up.

Today’s developments have happened quickly and without a lot of advance planning.

The talks to complete this deal are being led by new digital boss Jon Miller (pictured here), who came to News Corp. last month.

News Corp. officials declined to comment on the developing situation.

But sources said that Miller hadn’t been planning on getting rid of DeWolfe in the near future, and until yesterday, he was still evaluating his options.

News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch had once treated DeWolfe as a favorite and gave him significant autonomy at MySpace.

But Murdoch, who brought Miller on, has been leaning toward a change in leadership as MySpace’s traffic has stagnated and its buzz and momentum have moved to Facebook.

Under DeWolfe, many have felt it has dropped the ball on innovation and in making key improvements to its technology and features.

Worst of all, MySpace’s lucrative $900 million search advertising deal with Google (GOOG) is also coming to an end, a deal that essentially paid for the News Corp. acquisition.

Recently, several key execs have left too, including COO Amit Kapur.

In general, the social-networking giant has had an air of decline about it, despite its still-enormous size.

Nonetheless, Murdoch had left the decision about the site’s leadership to Miller, his new hire, sources said.

Miller had been talking to many and was indeed leaning toward putting a new CEO in place, but not in this fashion. He had hoped to work out the transition with DeWolfe, said several sources.

Miller himself had been badly treated, when Time Warner (TWX) dumped him as CEO of AOL several years ago. Ironically, the media giant just ousted the execs who ousted Miller.

But Miller’s options narrowed last night, once TechCrunch ran a story claiming that News Corp. had hired a headhunting firm to “scour for possible replacements” for DeWolfe.

News Corp. hadn’t actually hired a headhunter at all, but the story spooked DeWolfe into calling Miller to ask what his plans were. That conversation led to today’s negotiations.

Van Natta is well known at News Corp. and was, at one point, the leading candidate to head up MySpace Music, which launched last fall, and the two sides held extensive conversations.

But Van Natta did not like the job’s org chart: Rather than a standalone company, MySpace Music is simply a unit of MySpace, reporting to DeWolfe.

MTV executive Courtney Holt eventually took the job.

Van Natta is intertwined with MySpace in other ways.

Project Playlist, the free music-streaming site he took over last fall, has seen traffic plummet after MySpace, along with Facebook, cut off the sites’ access to their users, a move prompted by lawsuits from several major music companies.

Van Natta has made some headway at extracting the company from its legal mess, which predated his hiring, and he has hammered out a settlement with EMI Music Group.

But Playlist is still being sued by other music labels.

And, even music sites that aren’t in legal trouble are struggling to keep their heads above water.

Thus, plenty of Silicon Valley watchers–including BoomTown, who calls Van Natta periodically to ask why he seemed to enjoyed the pain of running an online music business–have wondered why Van Natta landed at Playlist in the first place, and have speculated that he has been looking for a way out.

He has been on the short list for many big Web jobs at places like Microsoft and other Silicon Valley start-ups, but has not bitten until now.

A major Yahoo investor yesterday told me that he liked what he saw so far from new Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz, but he still remained wary.

“I like the sizzle,” he said, referring to Bartz’s decisive take-no-prisoners style. “But I am still waiting to see if steak is there too.”

Well, Bartz handed over some tough news to chew on today, announcing Yahoo’s first-quarter earnings, which were just as weak as expected.

The company reported an eight-cent-per-share profit, down from 37 cents a year ago, a 78 percent drop.

Revenue in the quarter came in at $1.6 billion, a 13 percent decline from last year’s $1.8 billion.

And Yahoo (YHOO) also said it would cut five percent of its staff of 13,600, which means layoffs of close to 700 employees.

BoomTown liveblogged the Yahoo earnings conference call, with Bartz and outgoing CFO Blake Jorgensen.

(Bartz, well known for her ribald words and sassy phrases, lobbed several, and also tossed out a small F-bomb at the very end of the conference call, so read on to the bottom.)

2:04 p.m.: The call started off a few minutes late, but who can blame Yahoo, given the poor results? But Bartz finally came on the call with an upbeat tone.

“What an amazing and busy three months it’s been,” she said, outlining what she had learned so far on her whirlwind visits across the Yahoo empire and “deep dives” into the products and services of the troubled Internet giant.

“The most important takeaway was the importance of having a ‘Wow!’ experience,” concluded Bartz, who noted the definition of that particular enthusiasm was different, depending on who you were.

“Wow!” did not describe the earning results, to be sure.

But we pressed on.

2:08 p.m.: Bartz noted that Yahoo remained focused on investment and also renewed investment in the company.

She pointed to content, email, search and advertising as key building blocks of Yahoo and focused on three key goals:

1) Globalizing the Yahoo platform

2) Building “fantastic products” that deeply impact users

3) Investing in “industry-leading” online ad solutions

You know, getting back to basics of exactly what made Yahoo great before.

2:09 p.m.: Bartz complimented Yahoo CTO and Product head Ari Balogh, as well as other current Yahoo staff at the Silicon Valley-based company.

Then she announced that Yahoo had hired Jeff Russakow (pictured here) as its new customer advocacy head.

I am guessing he is now the key guy in charge of monitoring the “Wow!” level.

Russakow is currently VP of corporate strategy for Symantec, the online security software firm, which does not trumpet Yahoo! to me.

So, I wonder if Yahoo engineers should build a “Wow!” meter to help Jeff?

Bartz then noted that Yahoo has been and will continue to “slim down our portfolio,” while continuing in investing.

That would mean dumping the non-”Wow!”

2:11 p.m.: CFO Jorgensen hopped on, noting the “difficult economic environment.”

We noticed!

Jorgensen then proceeded to go through the unimpressive numbers for a while, in a voice that lulled me into a slight stupor. There was essentially no good news anywhere for Yahoo.

Then, he summed up and said goodbye, as he is leaving Yahoo soon and there will be a new CFO by the next quarter’s call. Jorgensen said he will be watching Yahoo “with interest.”

Blake! We hardly knew you! Call me anytime and we’ll chat and maybe have lunch (bring lots of internal memos!).

2:20 p.m.: Bartz complimented Jorgensen, although she did kind of “part ways” with him.

Then, finally, came a patented Bartzism, which is that special sassy phrase or ribald word, with her noting that users were looking for a “kick-ass” experience from Yahoo.

She obviously could not resist, which was a good instinct.

Bartz soon threw in a “freakin’” too.

Then, she non-answered anticipated questions about Yahoo’s talks with Microsoft over a search and advertising partnership by noting, “search is a very valuable asset for Yahoo.”

And that, she said, in a Forrest Gumpism, “is all we’re going to say about search today.”

Also, life is a box of chocolates.

2:25 p.m.: Bartz then discussed the economy, especially the impact on branded display advertising, which she said was not going to be killed off.

Brands were always important, she noted, and Yahoo could even help damaged brands revive themselves.

Like, um, maybe, Yahoo?

She closed the talking points part of the call on another upbeat note: “Let me say again how happy I am to be here.”

Us too, cuz Bartz is a definitely a live wire, as it later turned out.

(Bartz also announced an analysts day on Oct. 28.)

2:29 p.m.: Now began questions from said analysts (media folks are muted, of course).

The first was about ad price differences, which was dull.

The second, though, touched on the Microsoft (MSFT) talks, with someone essentially asking if Bartz was smart enough about search to be able to entertain an offer.

Well, what do you think she was going to say?

That’s right: “I am well versed enough in the search business to say it is critical to Yahoo.”

Bartz also noted that she thought advertisers prefer a combined search and display experience, which felt like she was channeling Yahoo EVP Hilary Schneider.

But Bartz also managed to keep the door open, saying–and I just know she had a mischievous smile while she said this–“Relative to anything else related to Microsoft, no comment.”

She was also not gaming the economy, noting that no one knows what will happen in the future.

“A wise person stays to the sides and lets the economists figure it out,” said Bartz.

As if!

2:33 p.m.: More questions were asked about costs and layoffs (sad!) and about ad inventory.

Bartz underscored the importance of its premium ad sales staff and placement over ad networks and randomness.

“Chanel does not want to end up next to Harley-Davidson. It kind of doesn’t work,” she asserted.

Well, it works for me! I mean, black leather and more black leather–what’s not to like?

2:39 p.m.: More about globalizing the Yahoo platform, which Bartz said would take a while.

“It’s not like flipping a switch,” she said. “This is work, this is not just words.”

Bartz also talked about how non-easy the current ad management systems at Yahoo are. Several times.

2:46 p.m.: A question then came about reinvestment, which was really about selling off stuff like the Asian assets.

No answers were forthcoming, although weak product groups are getting tossed off the good ship Yahoo quite quickly under Bartz.

More questions about the economy, the ad business and another attempt to find out about the Microsoft talks.

“Search is important,” to consumers and advertisers of Yahoo, Bartz underscored again, noting she was not going to fall for a “tricky” question.

Good lord, she’s a sharpie.

3:03 p.m.: Last up is a question about the investment in the global platform and the reorganization.

And, in the end, Bartz uttered the naughty word many had expected sooner.

It came when Bartz was on a roll about how engineers have been “scattered to the winds” at Yahoo and that there have been too many product managers overseeing things and annoying those windswept engineers.

She was dead right about this nagging issue at the company, as it has slowed down innovation and rollouts of key services and products.

“Nobody’s f#*king doing anything,” Bartz stated with apparent exasperation.

She tried to take it back quickly, adding, “I knew that would slip out some time.”

But Bartz should not take it back. Never ever.

In fact, most would agree that it was well past time that such an assessment should slip out of Yahoo.

As everyone knows by this morning, Spot Runner–the heavily-funded and once-hyped online-offline advertising agency–is being sued by one of its more prominent investors.

Ad behemoth WPP, which is making a variety of harsh allegations in a lawsuit filed about two weeks ago, is saying it is still not too big to be snookered by the start-up’s top execs and some of its other investors.

WPP (WPPGY), which has been quite active in making digital ad investments over the last several years, is alleging that Spot Runner sold over $54 million in “secondary” shares to line its own pockets without telling WPP much, all while losing money, running out of funding and not building a sustainable business.

The lawsuit essentially paints an ugly picture of Spot Runner as the Bernie Madoff of Web 2.0.

In its strongest phrasing, the lawsuit alleges:

“Rather than working to make Spot Runner a successful and profitable venture, they perpetuated a ‘pump-and dump’ scheme in which they aggressively promoted the Company to new investors (often by promoting that WPP was an investor in and supported of the Company) and then sold new investors large quantities of their own secondary shares at ever-increasing valuations. Such secondary sales were accomplished surreptitiously and without disclosures to Investors required by the controlling Investor agreements or federal and state securities laws.”

Those named in the suit include: Spot Runner CEO and co-founder Nick Grouf, CTO and co-founder David Waxman, venture investors Battery Ventures and Index Ventures, and board members, such as former AOL exec Robert Pittman.

This is obviously a bad turn of events for Spot Runner, which is currently reeling from the advertising downturn too.

Before that, it had gotten over $100 million in funding from a strong slate of investing luminaries.

Investors included international media giants Daily Mail and General Trust and Grupo Televisa, investment company Legg Mason Capital Management (LM) and luxury conglomerate Groupe Arnault/LVMH.

Spot Runner’s previous investors are Allen & Company, Battery Ventures, Comerica Bank (CMA), Lachlan Murdoch, Vivi Nevo, Capital Research and Management, CBS (CBS), Index Ventures, Interpublic Group (IPG), Tudor Investment Corporation and WPP.

All that money had, when times were good, given Spot Runner an eye-popping valuation upward of $500 million.

And that’s the very kind of bubble economics that apparently allowed some at the company to make those lucrative secondary sales the lawsuit alleges, with lots of demand to get in to the latest hot start-up.

To be clear, such sales are not uncommon at tech start-ups in Silicon Valley, often done to allow entrepreneurs to take some money off the table, especially if there is no clear path to liquidation.

But the scope of the sales alleged is quite unusual, with Grouf getting half the proceeds of the transactions, which were made from early 2006 to early 2008.

That said, WPP–which is seeking $11.5 million in damages, as well as legal fees, after investing $10 million–leaves itself open to its own tsk-tsking, since it finally got to participate some in the sales too, dumping $900,000 worth of shares in the last one.

That makes it seem like WPP is just miffed that it did not get enough while the getting was good, which is underscored by the small amount of money being asked for in the lawsuit, in comparison to the large and loud accusations.

Worse still, perhaps, for everyone involved, is the suit’s revelation that Spot Runner was not the revenue geyser it had touted itself as being–which should not come as a huge shock to anyone who has followed any Web 2.0 company in an even cursory way.

Very few, including the star, Facebook, make money, as BoomTown and others have pointed out a lot to little interest.

The lawsuit says the profit-free Spot Runner had $5 million in revenue in 2007 and $9 million in 2008. It alleges too that the company only has $20 million left of its funding and is spending $35 million to $45 million a year.

That’s because Spot Runner was trying to create a new online ad system, which was essentially a do-it-yourself model that tries to iron out inefficiencies in the buying and selling of advertising and bridge the gap between the traditional and online ad markets. It has since changed its strategy and is working on other products, such as a digital-media buying platform called Project Malibu.

Other than Spot Runner’s statement that it would defend itself vigorously, there were mostly no comments all around.

“This situation is unfortunate; we had hoped that we would have had a long relationship with WPP. We believe the claims are without merit and we will vigorously defend against them, including taking all necessary legal action to protect Spot Runner’s reputation,” said a Spot Runner spokeswoman in a statement.

But one source close to the Spot Runner side, while not addressing the specific allegations, noted in an interview with me that what looks bad now did not then:

“These are different times and things look differently.”

You can say that again. And again after that.

As point of that fact, check out a video I did, below, with Grouf last July at Spot Runner offices in Los Angeles, right after it had gotten one of its giant piles of money. (Grouf is pictured here.)

This video took place right after a lot of the transactions that the lawsuit alleges, which makes sense since Spot Runner was the hot start-up at that moment and many would have been trying to get into the action.

I met Grouf many years ago when he–along with Waxman–founded PeoplePC and Firefly Networks.

Grouf sold the struggling PeoplePC–which hawked computers bundled with an online service–to Earthlink (ELNK) in 2002 for $10 million and assumption of $35 million in liabilities, in a Web 1.0 meltdown deal that followed a disastrous IPO.

But with a hot new start-up, everything looked pretty again, perhaps too pretty, for Grouf.

As I wrote at the time about the hype, which including rumors of Spot Runner being sold for big bucks to Google (GOOG) or Microsoft (MSFT):

“This is its biggest burden, I think, setting expectations very high for what is still a little start-up…Who knows whether the company will be able to overcome its hype, but time (and money) will tell.”

Obviously, we can tell a lot more now.

Here’s the Grouf video (the full lawsuit text and a memo Spot Runner sent to employees about it are also below):

Here is the full lawsuit (click on + button to zoom in):

And, finally, here is the letter Spot Runner sent to employees, who have suffered from layoffs, about the lawsuit:

Team,

As you may have heard, WPP, a minority shareholder (less than 3%) in Spot Runner since 2006, filed a lawsuit against the company and its board members primarily related to the sale of Spot Runner stock and Spot Runner’s communications with WPP. This situation is unfortunate, as we appreciate and value the relationships we have with all of our investors and we had hoped for a long and supportive relationship with WPP. We believe these claims are without merit and we will vigorously defend against them, including taking all necessary legal action to protect Spot Runner’s reputation.

We feel strongly that WPP’s complaint contains many baseless accusations and we want to give you a broader perspective on the matter. This lawsuit is unrelated to our products and services–it is centered on legal agreements entered into with WPP, a sophisticated investor, regarding the way that shareholder stock sales were handled. WPP alleges that Spot Runner’s board members failed to disclose to WPP the stock sales by shareholders, allegedly in violation of the board’s obligations to stockholders, among other things.

We are confident that Spot Runner complied with all of its obligations under the various shareholder agreements. When these sales occurred, there was overwhelming demand for Spot Runner stock and the company did not want to dilute existing shareholders by issuing new shares. Therefore, the founders (in 2006) and the board members and other preferred shareholders (in 2007 and early 2008) agreed to make room for important, new investors and respond to their desire to invest in Spot Runner by selling their own shares. In 2007 and 2008, WPP and other preferred shareholders were given notice that the sales were occurring and they had the opportunity to participate in the sales. In fact, WPP signed various documents acknowledging this opportunity.

Spot Runner and all of its employees conduct business with the utmost integrity. Our team, technologies, and products and services are core assets of which we can all be proud. It is because of your hard work that we have come this far. To that end, we continue to drive hard toward successfully launching Project Malibu and realizing its full potential. You also should know that our board members remain majority shareholders in Spot Runner–a concrete sign of their commitment to and confidence in the business.

Our outside counsel will work with the board and management team to develop a formal reply, which ultimately will be filed with the court. These legal proceedings should not affect our day-to-day operations.

We are grateful that we can count on you to remain focused on serving our clients and partners to the best of your abilities.

Thank you again for all that you do for Spot Runner.

Last year, Yahoo EVP Hilary Schneider and then-Media Group head Scott Moore had a summery seaside dinner with Demand Media co-founder and CEO Richard Rosenblatt (pictured here) in Santa Monica, Calif., right around the corner from the online publishing company’s HQ.

While many speculated that Yahoo (YHOO) could be doing some friendly kibitzing to get a sense of where the eclectic network of general- and special-interest sites was headed, for a possible acquisition, nothing came of it.

That’s because at the time, Rosenblatt insisted that he was aiming to eventually take his company public and Yahoo was in the midst of ongoing corporate turmoil.

“There is a lot of potential here and I want to build a big company for the long-term,” said Rosenblatt in an interview with BoomTown last July (see video below).

But, as my post noted: “Still, at some point when Yahoo is not in the free fall it is currently in, Demand might make a great purchase for Yahoo.”

And now, a year later, as new Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz works to stop that slide, several sources close to the company tell me another look-see at Demand is likelier than ever.

That’s underscored with recent indications that a major strategy will finally follow through on making Yahoo’s massive but disparate service more social, especially its content offerings.

But would Bartz go as far as making a big buy now or would she be more likely to strike a massive partnership with Demand, from which Yahoo could learn a lot?

Such an acquisition could cost anywhere from $1.5 billion to–as was floated last year in better times–$3 billion. In addition, if Demand was to engage in more serious talks with Yahoo, there would likely be other suitors.

As costly as that is, some sort of link-up with Demand is an interesting idea, especially since Yahoo could use a bold and definitive move to signal social goals that play to its strengths and are not a copycat of more powerful social-networking sites now in place.

At a Morgan Stanley (MS) conference last month, Bartz said, for example, that “I do not believe we can invent the next Facebook,” while noting Yahoo still needed to be more social throughout the service, especially in its content.

And, just yesterday, a Reuters article about that focus was titled: “Yahoo’s Plan: Create Community from Isolated Sites.”

Said the article: “If [Yahoo co-founder David] Filo and new CEO Carol Bartz have their way, the kinds of social networking features available on Facebook will become part of many Yahoo websites and allow their users to network with each other without using Facebook. The company hopes the strategy will help link its disparate properties, bringing more advertising dollars and growth.”

And that’s just at the heart of Demand Media, which dubs itself the “leader in social media.”

Demand was founded in 2006 by Rosenblatt and Shawn Colo, who raised a giant pool of funding–$355 million–from gold-plated investors like Goldman Sachs (GS), Oak Investment Partners and even a private investment from major Yahoo investor Gordon Crawford.

Getting that kind of backing was due to Rosenblatt’s entrepreneurial track record.

As founder, chairman and CEO, he sold iMALL to Excite@Home for $425 million in a 1999 stock swap.

And, perhaps most famously, as CEO of Intermix Media, Rosenblatt sold it with the company’s crown jewel, MySpace, to News Corp. (NWS) for $580 million in cash.

Then, Rosenblatt started Demand, which takes user-generated content of all kinds and on all kinds of topics–especially via video–from an army of freelancers and leverages it into massive traffic that it monetizes.

Demand is also the one of the bigger suppliers of video to YouTube, which it also monetizes.

And, through the acquisition of Pluck, the company also laces social-networking tools throughout the sites, as well as for many well-known third parties.

All this has given Demand upward of 70 million unique visitors per month, at sites like eHow and GolfLink.com, with about $150 million in annual revenue.

And–drum roll please–it is reportedly profitable, although how much is not clear.

While he has long maintained a public offering was on the horizon, despite the weak economy, Rosenblatt has also been interested in the idea of how to revive major players like Yahoo and Time Warner (TWX) online unit AOL.

Both have been struggling, but still have massive traffic and brand recognition, along with large advertising businesses.

And in many ways, the energetic Rosenblatt is just the kind of product-centric and visionary exec Yahoo lacks, despite Bartz’s clear ability to get the company’s management ducks in order.

What could be even more interesting, said one source, would be to marry Yahoo and Demand with a lot of what is going on with the publishing of niche sites at AOL’s MediaGlow content unit, in a giant publishing network.

Ironically, AOL was another acquisition target of Yahoo, in yet another deal that did not pan out last year.

Here’s the interview with Rosenblatt at Demand Media HQ last year: