New York Times reduces stake in FSG...

[lfc4eva99]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-01/new-york-times-sells-most-of-its-stake-in-boston-red-sox-liverpool-owner.html

 

New York Times Trims Stake in Owner of Boston Red Sox, Liverpool Soccer

By Brett Pulley - Jul 2, 2011 2:27 AM GMT+0530

 

New York Times Co. (NYT) sold more than half its stake in Fenway Sports Group, owner of assets including the Boston Red Sox and the Liverpool Football Club.

 

New York Times sold 390 of its 700 Class B units for $117 million in cash to three separate buyers, the company said in a securities filing today. It didn’t identify the buyers and said an estimated pretax gain of $64 million will be recorded in the third quarter for the transactions completed today.

 

Fenway Sports Group owns the Red Sox baseball team, Liverpool of the English Premier League, about 80 percent of the regional sports network that broadcasts Red Sox games and 50 percent of a Nascar racing team. The Red Sox are worth about $912 million, according to an estimate from Forbes magazine.

 

Times Co. said in 2009 that it had hired Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) to sell its stake in the sports venture. Robert Christie, a New York Times spokesman, said the remainder of the company’s stake is still on the market.

 

The New York-based company has been struggling with declining revenue as readers of its New York Times and Boston Globe newspapers have migrated online for their news. In the first quarter, sales dropped to $566.5 million from $587.9 million a year earlier, as advertising and circulation revenue slid. In response, the company this year introduced an online paid subscription model for the New York newspaper, and plans to do the same at its Boston newspaper later this year.

 

New York Times fell 1 cent to $8.71 at 4 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange trading and has dropped 11 percent this year.

Fenway Sports

 

Fenway Sports Group is majority-owned by John Henry, a commodities hedge-fund billionaire. Henry bought the Red Sox in 2002 and the team won the World Series in 2004, ending an 86- year wait between championships. The team won the championship again in 2007.

 

Fenway agreed to buy Liverpool in October 2010 in a forced sale for 300 million pounds (then equivalent to $476 million) from George Gillett and Tom Hicks.

 

 

Any idea who these buyers are?

[DJS]

Heard a rumour that one of them was a T Hicks....

[Knox_Harrington]

Terrific to see the football club traded like this.

[Stevie]

Heard a rumour that one of them was a T Hicks....

Now that's not even a little bit funny.

[lfc4eva99]

Do we need to talk to the PL for their approval every time this happens? Do they need to be transparent about whose holding a stake in the business? Are these changes weakening the financial strength of the FSG? Questions Questions Questions!

[Tosh]

Struggling business liquidates non-core assets for $64m profit and still retains nearly half it's original holding....

[Falconhoof]

Struggling business ?

[Tosh]

Struggling business ?

 

 

 

 

"The New York-based company has been struggling with declining revenue as readers of its New York Times and Boston Globe newspapers have migrated online for their news. In the first quarter, sales dropped to $566.5 million from $587.9 million a year earlier, as advertising and circulation revenue slid"

[JonShar]

Do we need to talk to the PL for their approval every time this happens? Do they need to be transparent about whose holding a stake in the business? Are these changes weakening the financial strength of the FSG? Questions Questions Questions!

 

No, no, no.

[Antynwa]

Aren't the NYT just a major part of FSG. Therefore one of the major contributors, so they have to be acknowledged as an owner?

 

 

Edit: Didn't read properly

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 3, 2011 by Antynwa

[Falconhoof]

Struggling business ?

 

 

"The New York-based company has been struggling with declining revenue as readers of its New York Times and Boston Globe newspapers have migrated online for their news. In the first quarter, sales dropped to $566.5 million from $587.9 million a year earlier, as advertising and circulation revenue slid"

Oh, thought you meant Fenway. Couldn't give a s*** about the other stuff tbh

Edited July 3, 2011 by Tony Le Mesmer

[Case]

There's no way to paint this other than as a concern for us. FSG clearly need to be a little more careful with how they spend their cash now that one of their major investors has gone.

[Rimbeux]

There's no way to paint this other than as a concern for us. FSG clearly need to be a little more careful with how they spend their cash now that one of their major investors has gone.

 

 

I dont follow you. What's to say the NYT put anything in after their initial investment to buy into the group, now it seems they've sold shares to someone else for a profit. It's really insignificant on the face of it

[Falconhoof]

There's no way to paint this other than as a concern for us. FSG clearly need to be a little more careful with how they spend their cash now that one of their major investors has gone.

 

Nah, nothing of the sort.

[New York Red]

There's no way to paint this other than as a concern for us. FSG clearly need to be a little more careful with how they spend their cash now that one of their major investors has gone.

 

Not at all. You have a struggling part of the investmnent group who have sold their shares to more stable investors. We're better for it in my opinion.

[lfc4eva99]

Not at all. You have a struggling part of the investmnent group who have sold their shares to more stable investors. We're better for it in my opinion.

 

Would think so too. But do we have a clue as to who these new ones are?

[New York Red]

Would think so too. But do we have a clue as to who these new ones are?

 

Not at all. But we will find out shortly. They clearly have the financial power to buy into us, and more importantly, they have the financiual power and desire to buy into us. even though they get no real political power in the decision making.

 

They will probably be someone who just want to be a part of LFC. An emotional buy and not a financial one.

[lfc4eva99]

Not at all. But we will find out shortly. They clearly have the financial power to buy into us, and more importantly, they have the financiual power and desire to buy into us. even though they get no real political power in the decision making.

 

They will probably be someone who just want to be a part of LFC. An emotional buy and not a financial one.

 

Sounds good

[Gomez]

Not at all. But we will find out shortly. They clearly have the financial power to buy into us, and more importantly, they have the financiual power and desire to buy into us. even though they get no real political power in the decision making.

 

They will probably be someone who just want to be a part of LFC. An emotional buy and not a financial one.

 

What if they just want to own the Red Sox and couldn't give a f*ck about LFC?

[Kvarme Ate My Food]

Struggling business liquidates non-core assets for $64m profit and still retains nearly half it's original holding....

 

a spiffing deal for them, isn't it? let's raise a glass in celebration!

 

Not at all. You have a struggling part of the investmnent group who have sold their shares to more stable investors. We're better for it in my opinion.

 

all's for the best in this best of all possible worlds, thanks to our commodities hedge-fund billionaires.

[Sion]

Not at all. But we will find out shortly. They clearly have the financial power to buy into us, and more importantly, they have the financiual power and desire to buy into us. even though they get no real political power in the decision making.

 

They will probably be someone who just want to be a part of LFC. An emotional buy and not a financial one.

 

Complete supposition.

 

1. FSG isn't just Liverpool FC

2. We don't know if Henry et al have any say in who the NYT sell to.

3. Hicks and Gillett had the 'financiual power and desire to buy into us'. Look what happened there.

4. I would hazard a guess its a completely financial buy.

Edited July 4, 2011 by Sion

[aka Dus]

This is why SOS are absolutely correct to keep fan ownership on the table, to be maintaining regular dialogue with our owners and not letting the more clued in part of our fan base who give a s*** about governance to take their eye off the main issues.

[New York Red]

What if they just want to own the Red Sox and couldn't give a f*ck about LFC?

 

Nothing lost in that. The majority shareholders still wield the power and they seem to like us.

[davewigan]

Not at all. But we will find out shortly. They clearly have the financial power to buy into us, and more importantly, they have the financiual power and desire to buy into us. even though they get no real political power in the decision making.

 

They will probably be someone who just want to be a part of LFC. An emotional buy and not a financial one.

Any idea when we wil know who bought in?