Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Edmonton Journal Willing To Sell To Daryl Katz
As reported by Dan Barnes, of the Edmonton Journal, in the (online) Edmonton Journal. Surreal.
Labels: New Ownership
Comments:
While those 100 shares may seem paltry, do you think there will be any shift in public sympathy (though it seems the public largely supports the sale) based on the Journal's decision to sell? IE in your opinion Andy do you think the newspaper has any symbolic value?
Also, the article lists the total number of shares as 7492 - how do share numbers get created? When a company goes public, my assumption (with no appropriate background) was that they would set a number of shares to sell and that as such it would probably be a rounder number.
IE in your opinion Andy do you think the newspaper has any symbolic value?
I would think it would help a bit, but we'll see. They're the first ones other than Nichols who have stepped forward publicly. And I'd guess that it will help the "trust" factor concerning Katz. The paper really is putting its money where its mouth is, though it's getting a nice chunk of change back.
I have no idea how the shares get created.
I'd say one of the issues for the nays would have be taking on a fellow shareholder that is the reputable town paper; not a battle I'd want, that is for sure. If I wanted to pick the guy in my corner, "Terry Jones" would not be it.
Upon original company creation, the share quantities would be in nice round numbers. Add in a buyback at a new retirement value here, a cash call there, a deceased or bankrupt shareholder and other consolidation and it can end up with funny number quantities.
A corporation can arbitrarily issue new shares at important corporate milestones too. Although this dilutes existing holders (I need 12 pieces of pizza instead of 8).
one paper cozies up to Katz, the other thinks he's some kinda under-the-bed boogieman.
keeps getting crazier by the second.
This isn't very surprising, considering the 180 the Journal has taken on the EIG in the past few weeks.
BTW - those private boxes are upwards of $200,000 EACH, per year.
David, any chance you can shed light on how this looks behind the scenes? E.g. how much does Barnes know about his bosses financial intentions when writing his articles? I'm not suggesting he is playing it false, but does he get more of a green light in such a case, and how much so?
You might want to consider Canwest's internal issues. They are a media company that is involved in newspapers, TV, and the internet. Ownership of hockey teams is not their core business. Canwest has been trying to improve their balance sheet for a while, reducing debt and buying out longtime employees. They are trying to purchase Alliance Atlantis, another media company and apparently they need to have their finances in better shape to borrow the funds from Wall Street to buy A.A.
So, I submit that Canwest is probably in the same position as many of the other members of the EIG who want to cash out. I don't think the Journal's decision will influence anybody else solely because they are the Journal.
Katz is offering a good price. Maybe the other members of EIG can do better, but that remains to be seen.
David, any chance you can shed light on how this looks behind the scenes?
I don't think David S. is David Staples. They usually sign in differently. Staples signs in with his full last name.
And I would agree with Anonymous (who I'm going to guess works for Canwest) about Canwest's internal issues. The company that owns the Journal now is not the one that owned it when the team was first purchased. I'm sure they saw this as the perfect opportunity to get out and use the money for things more aligned with their core business.
The company that owns the Journal now is not the one that owned it when the team was first purchased.
That reminds me: they can send my deferred salary, errrrrr, dividend cheque to my Edmonton address. You can keep the interest, douchebags.
Confirmed. I am NOT David Staples. And even if I were, I would obviously not be able to provide "inside information" because I'd be under a non-disclosure agreement, just like any other media source. Otherwise we'd all know the real story behind the Pronger deal.
Well, I'm assuming that there is some kind of EIG constitution/share deal, that states that the EIG partners who want to sell have to offer their shares, first to remaining syndicate members, rather than to any outside interest. But it would be fascinating to see Katz get his nose under the edge of the tent with the Journal shares and then one by one buy out all the little guys till he has enough votes to kick Butler's ass to the curb.
I thought that original comment was strange, if it were coming from David Staples, not the mysterious David S. Makes a little more sense now ;)
Post a Comment
<< Home
While those 100 shares may seem paltry, do you think there will be any shift in public sympathy (though it seems the public largely supports the sale) based on the Journal's decision to sell? IE in your opinion Andy do you think the newspaper has any symbolic value?
Also, the article lists the total number of shares as 7492 - how do share numbers get created? When a company goes public, my assumption (with no appropriate background) was that they would set a number of shares to sell and that as such it would probably be a rounder number.
IE in your opinion Andy do you think the newspaper has any symbolic value?
I would think it would help a bit, but we'll see. They're the first ones other than Nichols who have stepped forward publicly. And I'd guess that it will help the "trust" factor concerning Katz. The paper really is putting its money where its mouth is, though it's getting a nice chunk of change back.
I have no idea how the shares get created.
I'd say one of the issues for the nays would have be taking on a fellow shareholder that is the reputable town paper; not a battle I'd want, that is for sure. If I wanted to pick the guy in my corner, "Terry Jones" would not be it.
Upon original company creation, the share quantities would be in nice round numbers. Add in a buyback at a new retirement value here, a cash call there, a deceased or bankrupt shareholder and other consolidation and it can end up with funny number quantities.
A corporation can arbitrarily issue new shares at important corporate milestones too. Although this dilutes existing holders (I need 12 pieces of pizza instead of 8).
one paper cozies up to Katz, the other thinks he's some kinda under-the-bed boogieman.
keeps getting crazier by the second.
This isn't very surprising, considering the 180 the Journal has taken on the EIG in the past few weeks.
BTW - those private boxes are upwards of $200,000 EACH, per year.
David, any chance you can shed light on how this looks behind the scenes? E.g. how much does Barnes know about his bosses financial intentions when writing his articles? I'm not suggesting he is playing it false, but does he get more of a green light in such a case, and how much so?
You might want to consider Canwest's internal issues. They are a media company that is involved in newspapers, TV, and the internet. Ownership of hockey teams is not their core business. Canwest has been trying to improve their balance sheet for a while, reducing debt and buying out longtime employees. They are trying to purchase Alliance Atlantis, another media company and apparently they need to have their finances in better shape to borrow the funds from Wall Street to buy A.A.
So, I submit that Canwest is probably in the same position as many of the other members of the EIG who want to cash out. I don't think the Journal's decision will influence anybody else solely because they are the Journal.
Katz is offering a good price. Maybe the other members of EIG can do better, but that remains to be seen.
David, any chance you can shed light on how this looks behind the scenes?
I don't think David S. is David Staples. They usually sign in differently. Staples signs in with his full last name.
And I would agree with Anonymous (who I'm going to guess works for Canwest) about Canwest's internal issues. The company that owns the Journal now is not the one that owned it when the team was first purchased. I'm sure they saw this as the perfect opportunity to get out and use the money for things more aligned with their core business.
The company that owns the Journal now is not the one that owned it when the team was first purchased.
That reminds me: they can send my deferred salary, errrrrr, dividend cheque to my Edmonton address. You can keep the interest, douchebags.
Confirmed. I am NOT David Staples. And even if I were, I would obviously not be able to provide "inside information" because I'd be under a non-disclosure agreement, just like any other media source. Otherwise we'd all know the real story behind the Pronger deal.
Well, I'm assuming that there is some kind of EIG constitution/share deal, that states that the EIG partners who want to sell have to offer their shares, first to remaining syndicate members, rather than to any outside interest. But it would be fascinating to see Katz get his nose under the edge of the tent with the Journal shares and then one by one buy out all the little guys till he has enough votes to kick Butler's ass to the curb.
I thought that original comment was strange, if it were coming from David Staples, not the mysterious David S. Makes a little more sense now ;)
Post a Comment
<< Home