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!

Tampa Bay Times gets big loan, but isn't saying from whom

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by FileNotFound, Jul 8, 2017.

  1. FileNotFound

    FileNotFound Well-Known Member

  2. LanceyHoward

    LanceyHoward Well-Known Member

    Do the feds still have a lien on the paper because of the pension fund liability.

    Even if they don' I think the board needs to find the best home possible for the paper, either a wealthy person who wants a trophy (Adelman has been a better owner in Las Vegas than Gatehouse) or maybe Tronc (which seems to be the best chain left).

    Of course, the CEO is one of the lenders. Could this be a plan to drive the Times into Chapter 11 and then this group, as the primary debtor, picks up ownership of the paper on the cheap while dumping the expenses involved in the foundation? I know I am a bad person for expressing these cynical thoughts but my self-control has weakened.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2017
  3. hondo

    hondo Well-Known Member

    If any government agency or elected body tried to pull this shit in the Bay Area, the Times would be screaming bloody murder.
    Between this and CNN adopting Trump-like bully tactics with the Reddit guy, a bad week for the reputation of journalism ... and we didn't need a bad week.
     
  4. BYH 2: Electric Boogaloo

    BYH 2: Electric Boogaloo Well-Known Member

    The Russians. I bet it was the Russians.
     
  5. dixiehack

    dixiehack Well-Known Member

    Well it is St. Petersburg.
     
  6. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Pull what shit?

    Unless I am missing something here, I really can't figure out what the big deal is. You'd be hard pressed to find a media company that hasn't issued debt (big companies much more debt than this), and in most cases that debt could be in anyone's hands via the secondary market. The debt doesn't give the holder equity in the company, so they are not an owner who can dictate coverage, and it doesn't give them a claim to anything more than their principal plus interest. So the mere fact that you own debt a newspaper issued doesn't give you leverage to try to demand much of anything.

    Newspapers have lots of relationships. Ideally, sure they disclose them all in the interest of avoiding any potentially bad appearances. But in the case of someone that has bought their debt, the nature of the relationship makes it much less worrisome than say if it was an advertiser, in which case there might be a logical temptation to give good coverage in return for the ads.

    I dunno. I am trying to figure out why others think this is such a big deal.
     
  7. playthrough

    playthrough Moderator Staff Member

    It's just obnoxious to those who know Tash, who every now and then climbs aboard his rah-rah Times horse but doesn't always tell the whole story. Obviously this news isn't bad (my wife will have a small Times pension so I'm rooting for the company), but I can smell some hypocrisy about not naming all of the investors. I know there's likely nothing underhanded, but why even offer that perception?

    And is there a more eyeroll-inducing name than "FBN Partners"?
     
  8. Matt1735

    Matt1735 Well-Known Member

    Pretty simple for me. A news organization preaches transparency and the first thing you learned in Reporting 101 is "Follow the Money."

    When a newspaper isn't transparent, especially about a financial issue, it wreaks.
     
  9. Riptide

    Riptide Well-Known Member

    Even worse, it smells so bad it reeks.
     
  10. LanceyHoward

    LanceyHoward Well-Known Member

    Your wife's pension is protected by the Federal Pension Guaranty Board Corporation (FPGBC). The maximum benefit for someone who retires at 55 is 29k a year. The FPGBC are the folks who slapped a lien on the Times beasue the company had underfunded the pension plan.
     
  11. hondo

    hondo Well-Known Member

    Pull what shit? Not revealing the identity of the investors, that's what shit.
     
  12. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Well, I get it. I agree that transparency is better than not -- in all cases. But what I was thinking about. ... was that I can think of a bunch of bigger newspaper companies that have accessed the debt markets, and most of us have no clue who owns that debt via the secondary market. It doesn't really trouble most people. I mean, I just found a market for Gannett debt that pays a coupon until November of this year, or until October, 2019, or July 2020 or October 2023. I could own some of that debt tomorrow, and you'd be none the wiser. All that debt would do is pay me a coupon, nothing more.

    You said they haven't revealed the identity of their investors. Perhaps people loan money to, or purchase someone's debt, as an investment. But these aren't equity investors. They don't own the newspaper. I was saying that on the list of conflicts of interest a newspaper might have, this is down the list a bit. I thought "pulling this shit" was pretty strong.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page