1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Boycott Bud!

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by micropolitan guy, Jul 15, 2008.

Page 2 of 2
  1. Beaker

    Beaker Active Member

    It's a poor beer anyways, so boycotting it shouldn't be a problem...
     
    Beaker, Jul 15, 2008
    #13
  2. Captain_Kirk

    Captain_Kirk Well-Known Member

    hmmm....I seem to recall a thread from a long ways back that provided some web statistics on SportsJournalists.com usage, and one of the more interesting and unusual items was the rather large number of users from Finland. Perhaps that was all clandestine research to prepare for a hostile takeover.

    So, best to be wary of the Finns as well as the Dutch.
     
    Captain_Kirk, Jul 15, 2008
    #14
  3. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    American found it had bought a company in worse financial shape than it realized after it made the purchase, and as part of the deal TWA declared bankruptcy (not its first time) the day after the deal was announced.

    These aren't parallel situations. American wasn't trying to gain economies of scale. It had to get rid of the carcass of the dead beast it had just bought. If it turns out that Stella bought a bankrupt company--and it didn't--no one should expect them to keep it operating it at a loss either.
     
    The Big Ragu, Jul 15, 2008
    #15
  4. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    A-B operates at a loss?
     
    cranberry, Jul 15, 2008
    #16
  5. crazedchipmunk

    crazedchipmunk Member

    not too hard to boycott being that bud is disgusting and i wouldn't drink it even if was the last beer left.
     
    crazedchipmunk, Jul 15, 2008
    #17
  6. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Of course it doesn't. That's why comparing American Airlines acquisition of TWA to Stella's acquisition of A-B was apples and oranges. Sorry if I wasn't clear. American didn't kill off TWA's operations to gain the economies of scale of a merger. They did it because TWA was in financial ruin. IF A-B ever turns into the beer company equivalent of TWA, it would be silly to expect Stella to keep operating its breweries here at huge losses, just as it would have been silly to expect American to keep operating TWA's routes and airplanes at huge losses.
     
    The Big Ragu, Jul 15, 2008
    #18
  7. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    Regardless, I'd be very surprised if there weren't some pretty deep job cuts in A-B because that's the "taking advantage of economies of scale" really means. Redundant departments like accounting will be the first to go. I'm not making a judgment or suggesting that merged companies shouldn't strive for efficiency. I do believe it can be taken too far, though. A lot of companies were gutted in the "merger-mania" of the '80s and '90s.
     
    cranberry, Jul 15, 2008
    #19
  8. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Oh, I'm sure they will eliminated redundancies. That is why companies merge--they believe they can squeeze out costs and get economies of scale of a larger operation.

    What they said, though, was that they would keep all of A-B's breweries open in the U.S. They won't take them overseas.
     
    The Big Ragu, Jul 15, 2008
    #20
Page 2 of 2
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page