Quantcast

Comments about ‘Did liberal politics play a role in sale of the Boston Globe?’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Aug. 6 2013 6:31 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
GiuseppeG
Murray, Utah

Disclaimer: I consider myself politically conservative.
Statement: Good for the Boston Globe selling for $180M less than they could have got. Anyone stupid enough to invest in the NYT deserves to get what they get.

Tators
Hyrum, UT

@ Freedom Fighter41:

The free market concept in capitalism applies to its generally accepted meaning when dealing with privately owned businesses. The NYT is not a privately held company, but rather is publicly owned by stockholders. Hence, the fiduciary responsibility to those stockholders who ultimately are the owners. Those stockholders collectively do have the freedom to sell to whom they want because of the free market concept you mentioned. But from this article, it doesn't appear they were involved with the sale decision. It appears the NYT CEO made that decision on his own, and thus neglected his responsibility to company stockholders. That would be the only grounds for a lawsuit... that wouldn't even be mentioned if that wasn't the case.

@ LDS Liberal:

It's not a conspiracy theory at all when a situation is based on facts. The writer of the article did a great job of bringing out the FACTS. It would only be a conspiracy to a liberally biased perspective. And your previous posts have left no doubt as the where your biases lie. Such a bias tends to see a conspiracy in any situation that isn't liberal based.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

Lets review some recent history for you liberals out there.

Al Gore recently sold his TV network to Al Jazera. Al Jazera was not the highest offer, but it was the one that Al Gore chose because they have values similar to his.

Was there a conspiracy involved? Why choose this to complain about, yet during Al Gore's sale you didn't care?

Either the leaders of a company can decide who they sell to or not, you can't ignore it when liberals cut deals for liberals then complain when conservatives do the same.

George
New York, NY

@redshirt
you may want to go back and read the story before commenting. It is not liberals that are complaining it is conservatives but thanks for helping make the point the liberals have been trying to make all morning.

Stalwart Sentinel
San Jose, CA

Redshirt - Haha, good job not reading the article and then commenting; tt tells a great deal about your willingness to opine without a basis in understanding. In this article, the conservative lemmings are complaining about a deal that is reportedly the same as the Al Jazera/Current deal you apparently approve of.

Regardless, this report is woefully uninformative and does a disservice to anyone concerned with the facts. At the moment, all we have is Lynch's claim that they (U-T SD) had bid more (though no monetary amount is provided). Indeed, we don't know how the two offers were structured (cash, holdings, stock, etc...), but even if the fiscal amount from U-T SD was more (no indication how much more, a dollar? a million?) the Board may reasonably decide that the structure of the offer is not the most conducive to shareholder interests in the long run.

Further, the author of this article seemingly wanted to use he phrase "the proverbial other shoe dropped" without considering the facts. Directly comparing the WaPo to the Boston Herald ignores the influence of readership demographic and the fact that the WaPo has more than double the Herald's readership.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

So, the 7th largest paper in the United States sold for $180 million more than than the 24th largest paper in the world and this is a liberal conspiracy because the two papers should have had the same value?

Seriously people?

As for "fiduciary duty" - companies are under no obligation to seek for or accept the highest offer when selling off assets. They are allowed to take other factors into consideration - such as local impact, long term plans, future of the employees, etc.

Should the shareholders decide to sue, the most they could ask the court to consider is the additional $10 million the highest out-sold bidder offered. They would then have to prove that the additional factors would not have made such a big difference in the long run and/or that the Board was not fully informed and/or acted with malice towards the shareholders. And, they would have to be able to do all that without costing the company $10 million or negatively affecting the value of the company in some other way.

And looking at the sour grapes and misinformation being spread by the higher bidder, the Times has grounds to support their decision.

Noodlekaboodle
Poplar Grove, UT

Why are we assuming the Globe is worth 180 million more than the Post? The post is a national paper, with national readership, the Globe is a regional paper, with half the readership. In addition, how do we know that Bezos didn't just pay way too much for the Post? It's hard to tell if this is bad at all because none of us really know what this type of thing is worth.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Looks like the attorneys are going to get rich from the NYT’s board’s malfeasance.

Leaving money on the table just to protect liberalism. Maybe they can get George Soros to pay off the shareholders.

Larceny,
Not just the company, but the board and management need to be sued.

Tolstoy, George, FreedomFighter41
Why is the concept of fiduciary responsibility so foreign to you? Oh, I know, you’re liberals. Any type of responsibility is a foreign concept.

Noodle,
No one is assuming the Globe is worth $180MM more than the Post, only that it is not worth $180MM less.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Sorry, my first sentence should have been, "So, the 7th largest paper in the United States sold for $180 million more than than the 24th largest paper in the U.S. and this is a liberal conspiracy because the two papers should have had the same value?"

Other sources report that the bids ranged from $65 million to $80 million. At most, $10 million was left on the table.

It is also reported that the successful $70 million bid was a cash bid - which may have been an influencing factor.

There are many issues taken into consideration when selling an asset and it is entirely possible that accepting a lower bid will prove the best move for shareholders as time progresses.

One poster made a comparison to selling your home - if I have a choice of selling my home for $700,000 or $800,000 and I know the lower buyer is going to take better care of it as opposed to the higher buyer tearing it down, selling it for parts, and leaving the lot empty - I can sell it to the lower buyer.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

@tolsoy (aka many other pseudonyms),

Your "game" is to rip down anyone who doesn't agree with you. I will not play your game because I don't believe anything that you post under this name or any of the other names that you use.

You wrote: "My problem is once again with your relative morality and ethics that seem o constantly drift in the wind."

May I simply suggest to "get over it"? You believe in only one thing that that thing is whatever you promote under the guise of whomever you pretend to be on any given day. You pretend that courts should never be used. Where did you come up with that? The Church that you claim membership in (under another of your many pseudonyms) has many lawyers, not to harass others, as you do, but to verify that all of their dealings are according to law. How misguided are they? Do they have "relative morality"?

Fiduciary responsibility requires that you or any person responsible, accept the highest bid when a business is sold as long as that is an honest bid. I'm afraid that your "relative morality" might be showing.

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

@lost in dc

maybe before you go making derogatory remarks about other posters you should brush up on your own understanding of fiduciary responsibility may I be so bold as to refer your superior intellect to spring streets comments on the subject as a start. Why is it that those that know the least are so quick to try to make derogatory comments about others?

Sorry Charlie!
SLC, UT

@mike richards

three things, first I hardly think you are the one to be lecturing anyone about posting under numerous pseudonyms Mike J White. second, you may wish to review spring streets comments companies may take other factor into consideration when making a sale. third I do not see anywhere in Tolstoy posts were they claim the courts should never be used or any claim to a religious affiliations. What I do see is you lashing out with wild unfounded accusations and misrepresentations, Kind of the definition of relative morality if you ask me.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

@Charlie, (Tolstoy, LDS Liberal, et al),

Is the kettle black?

What you posted under another name was that I "always" use moral relativity. Really? ALWAYS? Is the law broken if the fiduciary misuses his position of trust to give a "deal" to the owner of a baseball team when someone else has offered to pay more for the newspaper? There's no "moral relativity" in my statement, but it doesn't fit your premise, so it must be "morally relative".

Laws were written to keep people from twisting the words of others to fit their idea of what is right and what is wrong. The law tells us that you cannot accept a lower bid for business if you represent the owners of that business unless those owners approve the lower price. Those of us who are trustees know that principle. We know that if we fail to put aside our personal preferences in our official duty as trustee, that we will be held liable. You seem to want to suspend law unless you agree with the outcome.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

from the oped-"At the conservative American Thinker website, blogger Thomas Lifson wondered"
This is the entire basis for this story, a wondering conservative blogger?

Tolstoy, you obviously nailed it because Mike is livid enough to attack you over your name/names (inventing his own conspiracy if you will), the day, your religious affiliation and you morality, while ignoring that you are quite correct in pointing out he uses a slide rule in his ethical judgement of leeeberals vs conservatives here daily and everyone here can read it themselves.

Kalindra
Salt Lake City, Utah

If the NYTimes had sold the entire NYTimes company, yes, they would have had a fiduciary duty/obligation to sell it for the best (highest) price they could get for it.

The NYTimes did not sell the whole company - they sold an asset. When selling assets, there is no duty/obligation to get the highest price - the board can take into consideration other factors.

When an asset is sold, the court assumes the board has full knowledge of the options and made their decision based on that knowledge and that the decision, while maybe not reflecting the highest price, does reflect the long-term best option for the shareholders.

You can argue fiduciary duty all you want - but ignoring the facts of the situation automatically invalidates your argument - you cannot argue the price of selling an apple when the product being sold is an orange.

L White
Springville, UT

Oh my goodness but don't we have a circus today? Look at all the comments that tell us that losing one-hundred-eighty million dollars is perfectly normal in the sale of a liberal newspaper. Then look at all the comments that have nothing to do with the sale of the newspaper but are just attacks on other people who have commented. I guess that's to be expected from a newspaper that believes in "encouraging a civil dialogue". Maybe that notice is reserved for us Conservatives. Maybe that notice never appears above the comment box of those who are not Conservatives.

What really got to me was the comment that selling a newspaper for seventy-million dollars had nothing to do with "fiduciary responsibility" because that huge sale was more like selling a single paper clip and nothing at all like selling a business. (Of course, I am taking the same liberties that others have used all day long to misrepresent comments. It seems to be in fashion. Why should I stick to the truth when only Conservatives are expected to tell the truth?)

Let's see how the court rules on this sale.

Noodlekaboodle
Poplar Grove, UT

@Lost in DC
But how do we know the Post is actually worth 250 million? I mean in a real estate asset type sense. I mean if someone offered me 200,000 for my house that I bought last year for 70,000 I would take it, but that wouldn't mean it's worth 200,000. Do we actually know that the Post was worth that kind of cash, or did the owners laugh all the way to the bank? It's entirely possible that Bezos overpaid for the property, and the Globe was sold at fair value, or it could be the other way around, all i'm saying is that I highly doubt that anyone posting here has experience in valuing these types of assets, this is all silly speculation, based on your already formed political views at this point.

Hank Pym
SLC, UT

to Mike Richards

"What you posted under another name was that I "always" use moral relativity. Really? ALWAYS? "

Actually? Yes. Everything else is "relative" to what you consider "moral"

The only media outlet that is really so biased that it makes my stomach churn is Forbes.

Fox news is the comic relief in Murdoch's empire IMO.

Irony alert... Both, Sean Hannity and Seth MacFarlane are News Corp "employees".

Maudine
SLC, UT

L white

As others have pointed out before your comment at most 10 million dollars was left on the table not the 100 million plus you claim and the ny times sold a part of their business not their entire business which means under the rules they do get to take in other considerations in their decision making. as to not worrying about being truthful because you believe others are doing the same would that not be moral relativism?

Mainly Me
Werribee, 00

Is this a trick question?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments