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!

Harbinger gets three on MG Board

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Moderator1, Apr 24, 2008.

  1. dixiehack

    dixiehack Well-Known Member

    Until next year's election, when three more seats are presumably up for grabs.
     
  2. GB-Hack

    GB-Hack Active Member

    Not so Dixie. The Class A shareholders get to elect three board members each year. The Class B shareholders, which happen to be the family of chairman J. Stewart Bryan III, elects the other six board seats. Therby the family would still have control of the boardroom by a 2-1 majority as long as they block vote.
     
  3. Mighty_Wingman

    Mighty_Wingman Active Member

    Great points. Color me convinced.
     
  4. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    What's killing the newspaper industry for its employees (and former employees) is that it's still a profitable business, not it's dying. Newspapers still cost too much to buy as a business. The investment debt load forces the cutting-own-throat business model. Even the greediest businessmen don't think they can cut their way to huge profits, not really. But if they need those profits to meet their payments and keep the bank happy, they'll try their damnedest.
    I was told by a source I believe that the estimated price anyone would pay to take the Globe off the hands of the Times Corporation is $250 million. Since the Times paid $1.1 billion, they're not eager to do that. That might really get the Sulzberger family split enough for an outside takeover of THEM. But, that horrible decline is, I think, actually good news. The business will only grow again when its owners can afford to expand.
    One problem with this whole Internet revolution thing is that businesses find it hard to switch to a new model if it hurts cash flow. For businesses in debt, it's just impossible.
     
  5. Mystery_Meat

    Mystery_Meat Guest

    I'm not part of the dysfunctional clan that claims itself as the Media General family, but I did meet Marhsall Morton at a party and he's a pretty quality guy. He talked me up about some confounded internet experiment one of the L.A. papers was trying out with high school coverage, and he seemed like he a) cared about the quality of the print product and b) didn't mind slumming with the proletariat of the MG caste system (hi everybody!). Which is more than I can say for some of the other assbutts who breathe the thin air at the higher strata of MG.
     
  6. Moderator1

    Moderator1 Moderator Staff Member

    Meat and Marshall hanging? That's pretty cool.
    I've said on other threads: Of all the problems in the business, Marshall Morton is not one of them. The fix is bigger than one man and I'm not sure how much quality help he's getting.
     
  7. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Moddy, I know only a little about the company--and it is OLD knowledge--but without looking at it from the employee perspective of the people working at those papers (what you and most of the people on here care about, of course), it is exactly what it looks like. Someone had a large financial stake in the company. Typically when investors put up a challenge to the board of directors it means they don't think they are getting enough shareholder value. They want changes. I have no idea what those changes are with regard to Media General.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't most of Media General's share's family owned? If I am right about that, my guess is that as annoyed as a hedge fund that has amassed a large stake is, they do not have the ability to take over the board.

    So if it is the company I am thinking, my guess is these new board members will be flies in the ointment--but they can't lower a hammer, as much as they might want to.

    That can be good or bad. Sometimes when you have a single entity controlling a board and management, they fall into bad patterns. And new blood can force them--usually kicking and screaming--to think a little outside the box. The opposite can hold true. They can just be pains the in asses to the point that their only intention is to try to take over the company. I doubt that is the case, though, knowing what little I know about the newspaper business. Without knowing Media General's business, I could take an educated guess that you now have a couple of new board members who want to cut costs (I have no idea what those costs are). I'll bet anything it begins with a look at holdings and suggestions that they start selling certain assets. Just a hunch -- and I can say that without knowing very much about the company and still offer reasonable odds that I am right.
     
  8. Birdscribe

    Birdscribe Active Member

    BTW, following up on my earlier post referencing Bruce Sherman, from Sunday's NYT:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/business/04sherm.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin

    I'd say karma's a bitch, but it just doesn't quite ring true when the guy still has more money than Yahweh.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page