Skip to comments.Old but relevant: Bain part-owner Clear Channel
Posted on 01/10/2012 6:38:08 PM PST by NoPrisoners
San Antonio, Texas, April 18, 2007 Clear Channel Communications, Inc. (NYSE: CCU) today announced that it has entered into an amendment to its previously announced merger agreement with a private equity group co-led by Bain Capital Partners, LLC and Thomas H. Lee Partners, L.P., providing for an increase to $39.00 per share in the price shareholders will receive in cash for each share of Clear Channel common stock they hold. This is an increase from the previous price of $37.60 per share in cash.
(Excerpt) Read more at clearchannel.com ...
Try post #1
Ever wonder why your favorite talk-show host seems soft on Romney? This could be why...
Its flat out stupid
Are you drunk?
You dont seem to remember that this thread is about Clear Channel
and you are the one that started it arent you?
And I mentioned Rush exactly where...? Or did you not realize that there are other talk-show hosts I could have been referring to?
Let's see, Hannity leaps to mind, then there's Beck, then Lou Dobbs, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Mr. Savage, Hugh Hewitt, and a host of other less well known individuals.
You are one of those people who jumps to conclusions with very little in the way of factual information. Please do not vote in the upcoming elections.
And you never once deviated from the original theme, eh?
This makes your contention even more far fetched
Rush spoke about this today. Clear Channel became part of Bain, after Romney was no longer involved.
I think Rush has been favoring Newt and Santorum or at least has been very cool to Romney, but he was sure PO’d at them today.
“You people i.e. Gingrich supporters are a bunch of dangerous Leftists.”
You are a lickspittle gauleiter and bent over party catamite who does not understand fiduciary duty, but hey! What is a little disagreement between friends?
A thread to watch. Just sayin’ . . .
Who’s soft on Romney?
I have read many things on FR that I disagree with, some I find ridiculous however I am going to say that statement of yours may be the most stupid thing I have EVER read anywhere.
HANNITY: Let me ask you, Governor, because I've been following your speeches as you've been going around South Carolina. You are talking about the success of Texas. You are making comparisons about the Obama economy. But you've also had some very harsh words about Governor Mitt Romney, who now has won Iowa and New Hampshire.
You said -- talking about his days at Bain Capital, Bain Capital compared companies like that, they leave the carcasses behind. Bain is a vulture capital company. They walked into South Carolina, a company like Gaffney. They picked the bones clean of those people who lost their jobs in the same mill. You say, rather than restructure jobs, they're trying to make money. Ethics get thrown out the door. They make as much money as they can in a hurry.
You know, when I hear that, it almost sounds like "Occupy Wall Street." It doesn't sound like somebody that is governing the state of Texas as a conservative.
PERRY: Sean, there's a real difference between venture capitalism and vulture capitalism. Venture capitalism we like. Vulture capitalism, no. And the fact of the matter is that he's going to have to face up to this at some time or another, and South Carolina is as good a place to draw that line in the sand as any, because those people in Gaffney, South Carolina, understand what happened to that photo album company. The folks in Georgetown, South Carolina, understand the jobs that were lost and that Bain Capital took $20 million and $65 million respectively from each of those deals and walked away from it.
That's not what we're looking for in a president of the United States. We're looking for someone that knows how to build jobs, create jobs. And that's what I've done in the state of Texas. So there's no use trying to paper this over. That is a problem for Mitt, and he's going to have to face it.
HANNITY: Well, are you saying that he's -- you said specifically that they're not ethical. You said specifically -- you're saying that Mitt Romney, Governor Romney, is a vulture capitalist, that Governor Romney is unethical?
PERRY: What I'm saying is that the way that they operate at Bain Capital, with those two particular companies in those two South Carolina cities, I think was irresponsible. So you know, the truth is the truth, Sean, and there's no use in us trying to shy away from it. If we think for a minute that Barack Obama is not going to attack this and talk about it, we might as well get it out in the open and discuss it right now...
SO now The Boston Globe (the source for the article at the link you posted) is the source for conservative facts?
“... bled the company dry. Hundreds of workers lost their jobs. Stockholders were left with worthless shares. Creditors and vendors were paid less than 50 cents on the dollar. While they were exploiting the company, Romneys firm charged Ampad millions of dollars in management fees.”
Typical Boston Globe/Occupy crap.
Thanks so much for more boilerplate—I want facts, stats, actual numbers—the whole story, not just carefully-edited Boston Globe/New York Times liberal scare tactics.
From your Boston Globe article:
July 2, 1996: $15.13 - IPO Price
Jan. 27, 1997: $26.00 - Peak
Sep 16, 1997: $13.13 - Stock loses 42% of its value
1996: Ampad completes an initial public offering. Bain sells about 3 million shares, reaping about $45 million to $50 million for investors and itself. It also takes $2 million in fees for arranging the IPO, plus other fees.
· 1998: With Ampad struggling, Bain agrees to cut the annual fee $1.5 million a year. It also agrees to start forgoing payment until the company turns around.
· 1999: Revenues continue to slide. Ampad closes a plant near Buffalo, with up to 185 losing jobs.
Notice something a pro-capitalist (as opposed to a pro-Newt) person would notice?
Hint:Look at the note dated 1996: “reaping about $45 million to $50 million for investors and itself. It also takes $2 million in fees for arranging the IPO, plus other fees.”
What, please explain if you can, is wrong with any of that? All of this was done when the stock was heading towards its peak.
Yet the article is trying to claim that somehow paying ‘investors and itself’ is WRONG—whether it’s done when a company is on the way up or down.
This is exactly what I was talking about—people who know nothing of business are now talking like Obama and Occupy to attack Romney.
Man, this place is turning into Ron Paul/Occupy territory.
Oh, and P.S.—this is what I posted: “Post the evidence that Romney fired people who didn`t have to be fired. Articles, testimony—FACTS not just hyperbole.”
Where is all this evidence of people who DIDN’T HAVE TO BE FIRED? According to the article from the Boston Globe you simply cut and pasted from another site (instead of, you know, answering my very specific question), these folks were let go because the plants where they worked at was shut down-—in which cases were people fired who “didn’t have to be fired”?
I asked a very specific question because of a very specific accusation. Now prove it.
Newt’s actually more of a free market guy than Santorum is.
The PE world has largely moved on from the methods by which Romney made a ton of money with Bain. It was a game of buying up companies, stripping them of assets and overloading them with debt, dressing them up so they looked healthier than they are, and then selling them off soon after which they often went bankrupt because of the unsustainable debt.
It was legal but it was brutal, and now that people are on to it it doesn’t particularly work any more.
It’s crazy. All this stuff coming out about Romney now is going to lead to this thing boiling over now, and by the time Obama gets to it, Romney will be saying, “Well, I cut this many jobs and created THIS many jobs. You, on the other hand...” or “So how many jobs did YOU create in the private sector before you ran for president?”
I know relatively little about business, but at least I’m honest about it. The folks just repeating Newt talking points are sheep.
You’re right—I never thought being against Obama was somehow anti-Conservative. But I never thought Newt Gingrich would be embraced by the same people who hate Slick Willie.
What Romney and Bain did was legal but deceptive and deadly for the companies involved: they would gut the value of the companies while burdening them with debt and dressing them up for sale, take massive amounts in fees and sell for a profit, then soon thereafter the companies would implode. PE firms really can’t get away with this any more, so they no longer do it.
Tell that to Staples.