Posted on 12/22/2008 7:42:23 PM PST by GOPGuide
From 24/7 Wall St - based upon background and financials, ten major companies predicted to go away in 2009. Number 6 on the list? The New York Times. h/t An email from Pundita:
24/7 Wall St. looked at some of the largest and most well-known companies, reviewed their SEC filings if they are public, analyst reports, and media observations about their businesses and picked ten that probably won’t be around at the end of next year.
6) The New York Times (NYT) has to repay $400 million in debt in the first half of 2009. It does not have the money. It plans to mortgage its headquarters, but it is uncertain what that will bring in an uncertain real estate market. The firm’s Boston Globe and regional newspaper operations lose money, so they will be hard to sell. NYT is controlled by the Sulzberger family which has super-majority voting shares. That won’t matter much when the company runs out of money. Another big media operation, perhaps News Corp (NWS) which owns The Wall Street Journal and The New York Post, will come in and auction off what it can and keep the flagship New York Times newspaper and NYTimes.com website.
Hmmm. Sounds a little far-fetched. I’d say there’s a greater chance of Murdoch buying the NYT than your scenario happening.
(Dont Let The Door.. Hit You.... etc.. etc..)....
I’ll finish it for you.....
Where the good Lord split you....
I’d raise a beer to those wankers going down.
seriously, why would murdock or rush buy up nytimes. They’re not that stupid in throwing good money after bad. If they buy something, it needs to make money for them
“They will cobble together 400 million, but it will be at the expense of their most valuable liquid assets.”
Of course, if they keep selling their best assets what is going to be left of the company beyond 2009?
It’s not like their papers are making money or are going to be worth much compared to the Sox.
The news pages of the WSJ have always been center-left. The editorial page is still very conservative and is still one of my daily reads. They have added Thomas Frank as the token liberal columnist, but that’s the only significant change I’ve noticed. Murdoch actually expanded the opinion pages, which I like.
Sure, they have assets to sell to shore up their cash flows, however they are simply prolonging the inevitable, and their shares get weaker and weaker every day. As long as Pinch is at the helm, they will remain in a downward spiral.
Thomas Frank is horrible, but no worse than the erstwhile execrable Al Hunt. The Journal seems to be as it always was: “liberal” reporting, “free minds and free markets” editorial with one token liberal pinata.
To each his own. I found Thomas Frank appalling. Also, the books that were being reviewed began to seem less and less like something I’d be willing to pick up. It may be a well-written book on the dangers of Global Warming, but I’d rather the reviwer review something else. And their stance on illegal immigration totally sucks.
So long NYT, you won’t be missed.
My only complaint about the WSJ is that Murdoch has not gotten rid of the open borders editorialists. Still, it doesn’t seem like the Journal is any worse than it used to be on immigration.
No argument on Thomas Frank. The man is a clown.
As for their stance on immigration, well that has never changed. They have always taken the libertarian open-borders position. I disagree with that position, but they are generally a very authoritative conservative editorial page. John Fund, Kimberly Strassel, Holman Jenkins, & Daniel Henninger are some of the best conservative columnists around.
Murdoch probably has fewer scruples than the typical CEO/mogul.
The Kennedy’s are not fools. It would take the entire Kennedy fortune to bail out the New York times. Kennedy’s are like many liberals.
They talk ideology but the invest like a conservative. There is no way that a single Kennedy has the money and they are very unlikely to go together to take such a huge risk.
Investing in big newspapers in 2008 is like investing in Conestoga Wagons in 1904. In the 1800s the largest transportation vehicle company in the USA as Conestoga. It is a sure money loser. Kennedy’s invest in winners. The talk left and invest right.
“Rush should just buy the NY Slimes...the most perfect revenge on the RATS!
NY Times, Owner, Publisher and Editor in Chief, Rush H. Limbaugh III.
Talk about driving the RATS nuts!”
—
I like that!
Perhaps a consortium of Murdoch ($) plus Rush, Hannity and Anne Coulter as Co-Editors, lead columnists.
Another idea is Britt Hume; he’s retiring very shortly - new editor of the Slimes?
Here is a suggestion for the NY Times based upon their reporting and their support for liberal policies: 1. Cut the salaries of the top management (Pinch). 2. Raising taxes in a tough time is a good thing according to the NY Times, its columnists and the Democrats so the NY Times should follow this example and raise the cost of the paper to say 2 times what it costs now. Based upon their philosophy and the Democrats this model should rapidly return the Times to financial health. 3. Economic stimulus and deficit spending are the best measures so the NY Times should go on an immediate capital campaign to replace their press, redo their facilities and expand them. 4. Cutting costs by reducing the government work force and cutting programs is an anathema to the Times and liberal Democrats (except the military) so the NY Times should refrain from any buyouts or reductions in the work force. In fact they should call back all those that they have already let go to atone for their earlier error in letting them go. 5. They should get all their economic advice from the brilliant minds on the OP-Ed page. After all they do have a Nobel Prize winning economist on staff and who’d know better how to build a business?
TY for the update!
Merry merry.... and a Happy 2...
They have, in the form of dividends. They decreased the dividend payout by about 75% last quarter. That as much as anything may cause some of the Sulzberger clan to cash out their precious controlling "B" stock
2. Raising taxes in a tough time is a good thing according to the NY Times, its columnists and the Democrats so the NY Times should follow this example and raise the cost of the paper to say 2 times what it costs now. Based upon their philosophy and the Democrats this model should rapidly return the Times to financial health.
They have raised the price of their paper and made a forray into online subscription under the failed TimesSelect.
3. Economic stimulus and deficit spending are the best measures so the NY Times should go on an immediate capital campaign to replace their press, redo their facilities and expand them.
This move really kicked them in the balls. They paid cash for that brand new building and it killed their available cash. They overpaid for the Globe properties big time. Now they are trying to take out a loan against their new building.
4. Cutting costs by reducing the government work force and cutting programs is an anathema to the Times and liberal Democrats (except the military) so the NY Times should refrain from any buyouts or reductions in the work force. In fact they should call back all those that they have already let go to atone for their earlier error in letting them go.
The cuts will have to continue, especially at the Boston Globe. Though still profitable, the profit margins aren't high enough to service the debt.
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.