Posted on 08/03/2013 10:10:28 AM PDT by libstripper
After purchasing the Boston Globe in 1993 for a then-record $1.1 billion, the financially troubled New York Times just announced it sold the 141 year-old paper to Boston Red Sox owner John Henry for a mere $70 million. That's a straight 93% loss. Figuring in two decades of inflation would only make it worse -- as does the fact the Times retains the Globe's pension liabilities, estimated at over $100 million.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Needs to be Nelsonized. thanks
as does the fact the Times retains the Globe's pension liabilities, estimated at over $100 million.
I see that the author of this piece hasn't seen them either.
5.56mm
YEA — another “Too Big to Fail” Obamaproject
What are their land holdings and equipment worth in scrap?
Doesn’t matter.
It was worth it, to them.
Newspapers like this are not really businesses in a conventional sense. They are in fact now mainly political assets, valuable to the owners in obtaining or trading political favors, on their own behalf or in more complex tradeoffs.
Favorable coverage - or these days, more usually, non-coverage or alternate emphasis, i.e., distraction, and cooperation with media strategies - is traded for favorable regulatory treatment, legislative favors, etc. That all is worth far more to the owners than advertising and subscription income.
This explains quite a lot. Like why Carlos Slim bailed out the NYT, or why GE/NBC tolerated a money-losing MSNBC.
What makes this interesting is that only certain owners seem to be able to benefit from this.
Root for the players of choice and forget about the owners... Curt Shilling looked into running for Senate as an 'R' at one point (but then he opened his mouth and showed how deep he knew the issues)... still, Curt was a big R supporter. The team is ALWAYS showing their leftist ankles.
The Yankees, AFAIK, are a relatively "Right" team; dunno about the Mets.
Back when it was first reported that the NYT was looking for buyers and had a few nibbles, there estimates mentioned on the radio that the land alone that the papers (Worcester Telegraph, too and maybe another) stand on is worth $70 million, and speculation as to whether a buyer might just dissolve the papers and turn the land to profitable use.
“And John Henry could wait ten years and assume another 93% loss on his money. Don’t these people realize that there is no money in this type of news anymore?”
Apparently not. I initially figured Henry must have been another one of those billionaires who were so old that they had to turn the charging crank on the telephone before making a call when they were growing up, but I checked, and Henry is only 64. Like Vincent said in “Pulp Fiction”, he should fuching better know better.
It’s even a losing proposition for our side. Our billionaires would be much better to buy a struggling cable/satellite channel and convert it to a hard core conservative news and entertainment venue. At least, if I was a conservative billionaire and was looking for an entertaining hobby, that’s what I would do.
“... dissolve the papers and turn the land to profitable use. ...”
Like, uh, newspaper recycling. That’s it!
All estimates assume the pension liabilities are above $100 million. Depending on how much more it is the NYT is will lose that much money.
The only positive thing is that the NYT which ran the Boston Globe into the ground and saw circulation and advertising revenue plummet will no longer manage the newspaper. There is therefore a possibility that the Boston Globe will not go bankrupt in a few years as it would have done if the NYT continued to run it.
It’s kind of like Democrats selling Detroit for 7 cents on the dollar.
I would think the Globe would be worth more in the range of 27 cents.
Don’t these people realize that there is no money in this type of news anymore?
A worthy question, kempster, to which I don't claim to have the answer. All I've got is a hunch: properly managed, a big city newspaper ought to be able to break even and turn a modest profit. The new owner ought to diversify the Globe into direct advertising media and internet sites, as well as transform the "news" paper back into a legitimate newspaper. I doubt the market for news has evaporated; whether newspapers can boot-strap themselves out of the past, however, remains to be seen.
Lucky papers, like the Times are basically going to become real estate companies, developing the property they have and living off the rents and other investments.
I have to wonder about the Globe, though. The paper keeps getting smaller and more expensive. That can't go on forever. There was even talk in liberal circles about a foundation or even the government taking over dying newspapers and running them as public utilities (something that's been tried in the Soviet Union and other dictatorships).
I guess getting bought out by the Red Sox owner was a good move, since many of the people who still read the paper only do so for the sports pages.
And the Slimes screws another victim.
Well if that is the case, the trucks, presses, computers and furniture should be worth a few bucks too if only in scrap.
That means 7% profit, yes? Not bad. Math is hard.
Die NYT, die!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
